Games Journalism! Wainwright/Florence/Tomb Raider/Eurogamer/Libel Threats/Doritos

Status
Not open for further replies.
The Weekend Confirmed guys pretty much nailed this.

Videogame "journalism" is entertainment reporting. No more, no less. Keighley is Ryan Seacrest, not Walter Cronkite.
As long as they expect the credibility of Seascrest, and their influence to be that of Seacrest, that's fine. Which is pretty much where they stand with me until proven otherwise, these days.

The good news from all this rubbish is I have found a few new places to read, some gaffers have done the same, and a couple writers got a bit introspective. I will still rely on friends and gaffers for game impressions, and not bother buying anything day 1.
 
The thing about what the Weekend Confirmed crew said (we're critics, not journalists) doesn't hold any water if you value credibility when it comes to game critiques. I don't understand how ethics fly out the window because of the moniker you give yourself. That's not to question Garnett or Jeff's integrity or character, honestly I think they're fairly trust-worthy, but I do think their "out" in this case is paper thin.
 
It will be important to examine the articles kotaku et al. write about this subject in the coming days and not let them off the hook just because 'we won, they acknowledged us!'

Continuous discussion and investigation here and elsewhere have helped push them this far, but if the pieces they write downplay the seriousness of of the issue or have innaccuracies, we cannot just let it go.

Getting complacent over a minor victory is the very thing that will cause these events to fail to have a lasting impact. If anything, we should be even more vigilant going forward. If the bigger outlets simply co-opt the issue and use it to tout there own credibility while sweeping the issue under the rug, it is our duty to call them out.
I don't think I was asking anyone to do that. It just seemed silly of me that people are mad at Totilo, Totilo does what they want, and they're still mad. It's like they're not really interested in getting what they want, they're interested in trashing Totilo. That, to me, isn't cool. By all means, trash him if he's doing wrong, but be happy when he does right.

The thing about what the Weekend Confirmed crew said (we're critics, not journalists) doesn't hold any water if you value credibility when it comes to game critiques. I don't understand how ethics fly out the window because of the moniker you give yourself. That's not to question Garnett or Jeff's integrity or character, honestly I think they're fairly trust-worthy, but I do think their "out" in this case is paper thin.
"Nah, it's cool, bro, I can totally participate in unethical activities because I've labeled myself differently."

Film criticism doesn't really have this problem. I can hop on quite a few film websites and end up reading stuff from guys like Film Crit Hulk. I don't even think the gaming media is capable of producing someone willing to critique the industry with the kind of intelligence and humility of that guy.
 
is it me or are all reviewers using Dark Souls as some sort of litmus test for "look how hardcore and hip and with it we still are! totally! we love this hard-like-nintendo-games game! LOOK AT HOW MUCH CREDIBILITY WE HAVE"
 
>Vidya games are art
>Except when our integrity/reputation/ethics are called into question
>It's just vidya games
>Care about something actually worth caring about


My interpretation of a few 'journalists' so far.
 
We're all guilty of this, as though "day one!" is how we express our commitment and enthusiasm to the games we're most excited about. If we're asking journalists to turn the gaze on themselves, we may as well do the same. It's not like "being a PR mouthpiece" ends with journalists. We all do the same shit here and elsewhere.
"We're" guilty of nothing. It doesnt matter if as consumers we're PR mouthpieces or anti-establishment arseholes, we have no responsibility to anyone other then ourselves. The same isnt true of games journalists (admittedly as this thread has highlighted the line between consumer, pr spokesperson and games journalist is often hazy). Consumers who are excited about games arent suddenly going to stop buying games as soon as theyre available, which means publishers arent going to change their focus on day one and pre-order incentives. To think otherwise is naieve at best.

However there certainly is room for more of a spectrum in games journalism, from the "up to the minute" mainline news sites (who have no choice but to at least sit on PR's bed - even if they dont get under the covers) to a more critical, more well researched and more ethical section of games journalism. However there is a price to be paid for the latter, good writing takes longer than rehashing press releases and its likely going to mean reduced access to previews and review copies. Some sites simply might not be able to survive on the reduced general traffic this will result on, others clearly can (I think Rock, Paper, Shotgun shows this and serves as a good template for a middle ground).
 
Right, and that's a separate conversation. An interesting one! It's worth thinking about and worth considering every time we think about doing an unboxing video in the future.

My point is that Kotaku does a great deal of journalism, and I don't think a lot of the people in this thread have recognized that. I spend most of my time every day calling people, chasing stories, reaching out to contacts, and writing (hopefully) interesting things both long and short. Before Kotaku, I worked for Wired doing the same thing, and before that I reported for various papers/websites in various ways. I've made my fair share of mistakes over the years -- one of which unfortunately came under the spotlight here on NeoGAF -- but I am proud of what I have done and continue to do at Kotaku.

Let me put it this way: if the bulk of my job was to unbox video games, I don't think I'd last very long doing it!
But you also have to understand that as readers, we look at websites holistically. I don't visit websites if I find half of the content to be mindless (unboxing) or borderline offensive (pictures, videos, figurines of naked women for sale), even if the rest of the content is grade-A journalism. There's a reason that Kotaku has gotten the reputation among many on GAF that it has. Honestly, the only time I read a piece on Kotaku is if it's been linked to for a very specific reason from some other site. And like I said earlier, I used to be a regular reader of the site, but it took a weird turn. Not sure when or why. I know it was before Totilo took over because I kept hoping he'd turn the ship around.
 
Right, and that's a separate conversation. An interesting one! It's worth thinking about and worth considering every time we think about doing an unboxing video in the future.

My point is that Kotaku does a great deal of journalism, and I don't think a lot of the people in this thread have recognized that. I spend most of my time every day calling people, chasing stories, reaching out to contacts, and writing (hopefully) interesting things both long and short. Before Kotaku, I worked for Wired doing the same thing, and before that I reported for various papers/websites in various ways. I've made my fair share of mistakes over the years -- one of which unfortunately came under the spotlight here on NeoGAF -- but I am proud of what I have done and continue to do at Kotaku.

Let me put it this way: if the bulk of my job was to unbox video games, I don't think I'd last very long doing it!
Jason, Kotaku doesn't need our collective recognition. It already is one of the biggest sites in the business, and I would bet that a vast majority of GAFfers already visit it regularly. Keep doing your work and earn our recognition. Kotaku article about SK was subject of a thread here and people unanimously congratulated your work on that. But as recognition is due when deserved also the missteps will be pointed out. I'm sure you can parse through some of the more violent critics that you read here and find some truth on those.
 
But you also have to understand that as readers, we look at websites holistically. I don't visit websites if I find half of the content to be mindless (unboxing) or borderline offensive (pictures, videos, figurines of naked women for sale), even if the rest of the content is grade-A journalism. There's a reason that Kotaku has gotten the reputation among many on GAF that it has. Honestly, the only time I read a piece on Kotaku is if it's been linked to for a very specific reason from some other site. And like I said earlier, I used to be a regular reader of the site, but it took a weird turn. Not sure when or why. I know it was before Totilo took over because I kept hoping he'd turn the ship around.
If they'd do less stuff like Scalzi's article or the weird, random-ass Japanese 'culture' stuff, surely they'd have a better reputation. Like I've said before, I have a weird-ass interest in packaging, so for me, unboxing is in my interest. Getting into the weird drawings of a Japanese idol doesn't seem to be gaming-related at all.
 

TheSeks

Blinded by the luminous glory that is David Bowie's physical manifestation.
I take issue with this mentality that "journalism" means pissing people off. Sometimes it certainly means pissing people off, but sometimes it can also align with a publisher's interests. If I want to chat with some developers about the crazy story behind their game and it reflects on them and their publishers in a positive way, that is still journalism. Probing Reggie Fils-Aime about the Wii's weak final years is also journalism. Uncovering a story about sexual harassment at Stardock is journalism too. Contacting sources and telling stories in a fair, honest way is journalism, and I think it's only fair to recognize that Kotaku does a great deal of it, even if you dislike our Halo 4 unboxing video or other, more lighthearted content.
I agree with you up until the bold. I disagree strongly because anytime I've seen Kotaku post anything, it's not really "journalism" to me. It's blogging. And frankly, if that's what you guys want to be, fine. But I've had issues with Kotaku for years because:

-They try to hide behind BOTH the journalism and blogging cards by trying to be either and being a master of none.
-The content is mostly stupid ("FF7 hentai in Japan!? ZOMG WTF!?")

Granted, this was years ago but that was enough to make me never bother to check in again. So, prove me wrong: Provide me some "hard-hitting" and quality Kotaku articles because I'd love to know they've changed from being completely not worth the time to check/read your stuff.

mesmerMAN said:
is it me or are all reviewers using Dark Souls as some sort of litmus test for "look how hardcore and hip and with it we still are! totally! we love this hard-like-nintendo-games game! LOOK AT HOW MUCH CREDIBILITY WE HAVE"
It's been that way since Demon's Souls caught "hardcore" gamers attentions with people importing it from China/Asia. Anytime someone mentions Dark/Demon's Souls as some top 10 game of theirs and full of hyperbolic I have to roll my eyes and go "yeah, right." They're both good games, but the whole cult/hype around them has gotten stale and quite annoying now.
 
I also don't see why he has to be upset about the reaction here if the site is popular. If the weird ass articles draw views for them, great! Doesn't mean I like them, or that I'm going to visit the site daily, even if they do more serious articles occasionally.

I'm sure there are plenty of people here that visit them regularly, some that only visit if they're linked directly, and some that edited their hosts file so they can never visit them (ok probably not, but my point stands).

If your measure of success is a profitable website with a lot of hits, why do you care if some people dislike your site? Nothing you ever do online is going to be free of criticism, no matter how good.
 
It's been that way since Demon's Souls caught "hardcore" gamers attentions with people importing it from China/Asia. Anytime someone mentions Dark/Demon's Souls as some top 10 game of theirs and full of hyperbolic I have to roll my eyes and go "yeah, right." They're both good games, but the whole cult/hype around them has gotten stale and quite annoying now.
This is a thread about the gaming media and PR relationship.

Look for a hipster thread somewhere else.
 
I've been digging around - couldn't find the episode. Did find a link to her Destructoid blog, where she appears to have gotten her real start as a games journalist back in 2009.

Here's an entry entitled "10 Things You Should Know About Me"
As much as that makes me want to bang my head on a hard surface repeatedly, I think digging up more dirt on her distracts from where the thread has gone, and is heading into creepy internet detective territory anyway.
 
But you also have to understand that as readers, we look at websites holistically. I don't visit websites if I find half of the content to be mindless (unboxing) or borderline offensive (pictures, videos, figurines of naked women for sale), even if the rest of the content is grade-A journalism. There's a reason that Kotaku has gotten the reputation among many on GAF that it has. Honestly, the only time I read a piece on Kotaku is if it's been linked to for a very specific reason from some other site. And like I said earlier, I used to be a regular reader of the site, but it took a weird turn. Not sure when or why. I know it was before Totilo took over because I kept hoping he'd turn the ship around.
Well I encourage you to give it another chance! :) Kotaku has changed quite a bit since Totilo took over (which is also around when I started), and I think we do a lot less "here's a new trailer!" and a lot more "here's an interesting story!" We've also done a better job of separating some of our content -- all of our Asian culture stuff is now part of a section called Kotaku East, for example, that runs between 4-8am ET. If you're not interested in those sort of posts, they're easy to skip.

Regardless, it's perfectly OK with me if you've read a few recent articles and you're not a fan of Kotaku's writers or content. We can't please everyone. What bugs me is the whole vitriolic "oh you're not a journalist" or "Kotaku is just a glorified marketing arm" stuff. That just straight-up isn't true.
 
If your measure of success is a profitable website with a lot of hits, why do you care if some people dislike your site? Nothing you ever do online is going to be free of criticism, no matter how good.
Not to get all armchair psychologist but a lot of responses from journalists to this whole debacle smack of insecruity. The kind of insecurity that you see pervading a lot of things related to gaming because games arent "important" and people seem to often feel subconsciously or secretly ashamed to be fans of them/working on them/writing about them

In the immortal words of Luke Cage, Sweet christmas
 
I agree with you up until the bold. I disagree strongly because anytime I've seen Kotaku post anything, it's not really "journalism" to me. It's blogging. And frankly, if that's what you guys want to be, fine. But I've had issues with Kotaku for years because:

-They try to hide behind BOTH the journalism and blogging cards by trying to be either and being a master of none.
-The content is mostly stupid ("FF7 hentai in Japan!? ZOMG WTF!?")

Granted, this was years ago but that was enough to make me never bother to check in again. So, prove me wrong: Provide me some "hard-hitting" and quality Kotaku articles because I'd love to know they've changed from being completely not worth the time to check/read your stuff.
Come on, man. I didn't even start at Kotaku until February of this year. Don't say you haven't read Kotaku in years and then try to talk about what it is today. I'd give you some examples to some of the great stuff we've done recently, but sadly, the hurricane has knocked out all of Gawker Media's servers and the site's down!
 
More Scalzi is generally a better thing, not less.
Generally, but his article talking about how being a straight, white male made life easier was really, really poor.

Come on, man. I didn't even start at Kotaku until February of this year. Don't say you haven't read Kotaku in years and then try to talk about what it is today. I'd give you some examples to some of the great stuff we've done recently, but sadly, the hurricane has knocked out all of Gawker Media's servers and the site's down!
Quite a few people are going to ask "is Ashcraft there? Y/N?"

I wish you guys had a higher ratio of the Silicon Knights-type pieces to the 'lol cosplayers' articles.

Also, not a fan of the 'programming blocks' thing. Neat idea, but nope, not a fan.
 
I also don't see why he has to be upset about the reaction here if the site is popular. If the weird ass articles draw views for them, great! Doesn't mean I like them, or that I'm going to visit the site daily, even if they do more serious articles occasionally.

I'm sure there are plenty of people here that visit them regularly, some that only visit if they're linked directly, and some that edited their hosts file so they can never visit them (ok probably not, but my point stands).

If your measure of success is a profitable website with a lot of hits, why do you care if some people dislike your site? Nothing you ever do online is going to be free of criticism, no matter how good.
Oh, I don't mind criticism! Especially when I fuck up. What I mind is people treating us unfairly, which is one of the reasons I'm in here chatting. I don't think it's fair, for example, to judge Kotaku of today based on opinions you formed four years ago. Or based on a Halo 4 unboxing video.
 
Guys, everything after her remarks on the subject at hand are completely irrelevant.

It doesn't help to know that she's a terrible person, we could infer that from the start of the discussion.
 
Regardless, it's perfectly OK with me if you've read a few recent articles and you're not a fan of Kotaku's writers or content. We can't please everyone. What bugs me is the whole vitriolic "oh you're not a journalist" or "Kotaku is just a glorified marketing arm" stuff. That just straight-up isn't true.
Ignore it. If you guys really are, it'll show, and your readership will respond.

I didn't expect to see that SK story out of Kotaku, nor did I even expect to see the Stardock story (the latter I was linked to from, you guessed it, another forum).

If you keep that up, I might even check out the site :V

As for continued vitriol, you can't possibly tell me you don't understand why Kotaku has the reputation it does. The internet has a long memory, and it takes a long time to change impressions, especially from people who have already dismissed you and haven't seen anything new to change their opinion because they no longer visit the site.

Want to hop on the NuGamesJournalism? Stick a PR transparency block to the side of every article that shows what swag you got that went along with the story, what ridiculous events you attended, or what supermodel/vehicle you rode that day.

Want to get back readers who wouldn't touch you with a ten foot pole? Keep doing real articles that aren't press releases.

And again, if you already have a good reader base, I'm still not clear why you give a shit if the random internet peanut gallery decries your lack of journalistic integrity etc.
 
As much as that makes me want to bang my head on a hard surface repeatedly, I think digging up more dirt on her distracts from where the thread has gone, and is heading into creepy internet detective territory anyway.
So in a thread about journalistic integrity and practices, I do some very basic research via google to find a podcast, come up with a blog instead, and that's "creepy?"
 
I kind of get the feeling you guys are getting really close to crossing a line in regards to digging up dirt on this lady but...

Well now I want to hear this episode
Yeah I want to hear that or at least read a summery of it.



The conversation needs to move on beyond her though and I dont see that happening until she pulls her head out of the sand, make a statement and deal with the consequences head on. It would also be good move if she even wants to try salvage any kind of career in the gaming space.
 
We've also done a better job of separating some of our content -- all of our Asian culture stuff is now part of a section called Kotaku East, for example, that runs between 4-8am ET. If you're not interested in those sort of posts, they're easy to skip.
Just a note here, I only actually dropped Kotaku as a regular visit simply because of the Gawker redesign- something you have no control over AFAIK, so that's not a complaint about Kotaku really- but as a reader from the UK, I found myself seeing a hell of a lot more of the "Asian culture" content than I would have preferred, because it went up during my daytime. So that was a personal bother. (Not because I'm super racist or anything, I just found those articles fairly tiresome and off-putting.)

Can't really say you should get rid of them, I guess you need to put the "otaku" in Kotaku somehow, but there's a fucking weird juxtaposition between "HEY GUYS JAPAN SO CRAZY YO" and normal articles, and it's more evident for international readers.
 
jscheier said:
Right, and that's a separate conversation. An interesting one! It's worth thinking about and worth considering every time we think about doing an unboxing video in the future.

My point is that Kotaku does a great deal of journalism, and I don't think a lot of the people in this thread have recognized that. I spend most of my time every day calling people, chasing stories, reaching out to contacts, and writing (hopefully) interesting things both long and short. Before Kotaku, I worked for Wired doing the same thing, and before that I reported for various papers/websites in various ways. I've made my fair share of mistakes over the years -- one of which unfortunately came under the spotlight here on NeoGAF -- but I am proud of what I have done and continue to do at Kotaku.

Let me put it this way: if the bulk of my job was to unbox video games, I don't think I'd last very long doing it!
I am glad to hear this. Good on you guys. This is the best anyone can reasonable hope for--that you guys start considering this stuff more and thinking about the nature of your content.

I don't think you should view criticism of Totilo's comments or even of that unboxing as criticism of everything you guys do. Some people obviously generalize unfairly. But I think there is totally fair space for us to criticize (even satirize) content we feel doesnt hold up to scrutiny and I think that Halo unboxing stuff does not.
 
Ignore it. If you guys really are, it'll show, and your readership will respond.

I didn't expect to see that SK story out of Kotaku, nor did I even expect to see the Stardock story (the latter I was linked to from, you guessed it, another forum).

If you keep that up, I might even check out the site :V

As for continued vitriol, you can't possibly tell me you don't understand why Kotaku has the reputation it does. The internet has a long memory, and it takes a long time to change impressions, especially from people who have already dismissed you and haven't seen anything new to change their opinion because they no longer visit the site.

Want to hop on the NuGamesJournalism? Stick a PR transparency block to the side of every article that shows what swag you got that went along with the story, what ridiculous events you attended, or what supermodel/vehicle you rode that day.

Want to get back readers who wouldn't touch you with a ten foot pole? Keep doing real articles that aren't press releases.

And again, if you already have a good reader base, I'm still not clear why you give a shit if the random internet peanut gallery decries your lack of journalistic integrity etc.
Good points. Stephen pushes us hard to do better and better stories every day. We want the same thing you do. Trust me when I tell you that I enjoy my job a lot more when I'm chasing great stories than when I'm writing up trailers.

The transparency block is an interesting idea. Worth bringing up.

I like reading GAF because the posters on GAF are very passionate, and I have a lot of respect for that passion, even when it's directed against me and my colleagues. I give a shit because good, passionate, smart conversation is never a bad thing!
 
"We're" guilty of nothing. It doesnt matter if as consumers we're PR mouthpieces or anti-establishment arseholes, we have no responsibility to anyone other then ourselves. The same isnt true of games journalists (admittedly as this thread has highlighted the line between consumer, pr spokesperson and games journalist is often hazy). Consumers who are excited about games arent suddenly going to stop buying games as soon as theyre available, which means publishers arent going to change their focus on day one and pre-order incentives. To think otherwise is naieve at best.
Touché. But I don't think we're without responsibility entirely. I mean, look at what folks like us are doing right now in this thread and on gaming sites. We must feel some obligation to talk about this.

However there certainly is room for more of a spectrum in games journalism, from the "up to the minute" mainline news sites (who have no choice but to at least sit on PR's bed - even if they dont get under the covers) to a more critical, more well researched and more ethical section of games journalism. However there is a price to be paid for the latter, good writing takes longer than rehashing press releases and its likely going to mean reduced access to previews and review copies. Some sites simply might not be able to survive on the reduced general traffic this will result on, others clearly can (I think Rock, Paper, Shotgun shows this and serves as a good template for a middle ground).
You're absolutely right. It's hard to strike that balance. Clearly the more commercial sites are going to be more successful. That's the nature of the beast in any industry. And many consumerist outlets (take Wired or Rolling Stone, for example) find ways to do both serious journalism and crass commercialism in a single issue. But in my experience, those outlets do a much more thorough job of separating the journalism from the marketing.

The proliferation and importance of review writing, however, is unique to games journalism. Its nearest analog is in film criticism. But since film critics don't deal with an actual "product" in the same way, it's easier for them to keep their distance. Game critics, therefore, need to be doubly on their guard IMO, and they need to have stricter ethical guidelines for how they interact with PR reps, publishing folks, promotional material, etc. It's a unique position in journalism, and the bulk of it falls to inexperienced, underpaid, young people with little-to-no guidance or accountability. Publishers see all of that as a tremendous opportunity to fill a vacuum of guidance. This IS NOT about bribes or corruption, but simply about the unique position of most game review writers (many of whose reviews subsequently appear on Metacritic and greatly affect consumer and business decisions).

And I think the unspoken "hierarchy" of gaming sites and journalists is very much an issue in all of this. The fact that some journalists are jumping to Wainwright's defense is probably out of sympathy and recognition. They have all been there at some point in their careers. They've all been some young, inexperienced games writer working without much guidance. They all know how easy it can be not to recognize when you've made a bad decision because publishers will do everything they can to influence your decisions. Without the protection of a big site behind you and very experienced friends, it's very easy to do something stupid without realizing it.

Publishers aren't stupid. They know they have the greatest ability to influence journalists who have the least experience, who are the least connected, and who work at the smallest sites (but who still influence consumer opinion through sites like Metacritic). Without even doing the research, it's a safe bet to assume that PR/publisher influence is most successful at that level. I'm not saying this is the position that Wainwright is in. And I'm certainly not defending her. But there are hundreds of writers who are in that position. And, unfortunately, they're the ones who are least likely to be affected by any "grass roots" calls for change by readers.

All we can hope is that more established journalists stop being defensive and use this as an opportunity to turn the microscope on the journalism side of the industry as a whole, and that they stop assuming we're attacking them or out for blood. I mean, imagine that Kotaku (you listening, Stephen?) did a story on these small sites and these lesser known journalists? What might change if this part of the industry were suddenly opened up to readers' gazes? Would publishers back off? Would practices change? And, wait for it, might we start seeing industry-wide standards? A *gasp* writer's union?

I don't know. But it seems worth it to keep pushing in order to see what happens.
 
I don't think I was asking anyone to do that. It just seemed silly of me that people are mad at Totilo, Totilo does what they want, and they're still mad. It's like they're not really interested in getting what they want, they're interested in trashing Totilo. That, to me, isn't cool. By all means, trash him if he's doing wrong, but be happy when he does right..
Totally agreed.
 
Not to get all armchair psychologist but a lot of responses from journalists to this whole debacle smack of insecurity. The kind of insecurity that you see pervading a lot of things related to gaming because games arent "important" and people seem to often feel subconsciously or secretly ashamed to be fans of them/working on them/writing about them
I kind of agree with the last point. Gaming in general has a sadly high degree of socially maladjusted members (I'm sorry if you disagree, every online game I have ever played and a good number of forums say to me that I'm right), and even amongst those who are otherwise generally sane, I've met a fair number who aren't entirely proud or comfortable about what they do with/around/about games.

Ironically, the group I've met who are often the most comfortable with games are the ones that play them - wait for it - completely casually. I meet a neighbors friend and he finds out I know what he's talking about when he mentions the latest halo/cod/madden and he suddenly can't stop talking about them with boyish glee. I think that's completely healthy - a happy hobby is a good hobby. Excessively investing any portion of your self worth or identity as a 'gamer' is, well, not.

When it's your job, that's something else entirely. Writers in general tend to be insecure :D But beyond that, I totally get that writers would be extra-uncomfortable if their job (which is a part of their identity, or it should be if they have any self respect!) is being harshed on by internet yahoos. Salient point here being that they are internet yahoos. You have to filter out the noise and parse the opinions of people who seem to be sane if you're going to extract anything worthwhile from generally worthless internet chatter.

And it can definitely be hard if everyone you meet in meatspace hasn't the faintest fucking idea what it is you do for a living ('You play games for a living? Cool!') :D
 
How did Schreier screw up and get called on it by GAF? What's the story there?
He didn't as far I know, really, other than initially missing some of the more subtle discussion of PR influences.

Edit: and potentially making too light of the initial story on twitter. I was never that bothered about that though because at least he didn't just totally satirize and write it off (as is obvious by his participation here) like many did.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.