Support NeoGAF

[Ragingbegal]

Thing is you do your job. If you're told to write about said game you write about it. You can't turn around to your boss and say no.

I plan on catching up on the rest of this topic over the next day because I have a lot of questions, but I just want to address this specific statement before anyone with less journalism knowledge takes it as fact.

As a journalist your job is to disclose to your readers if you have a prior relationship with a subject you are writing about. It is common (and I've done this before myself) for a reporter to inform their boss that they cannot write about a subject because of said relationship. If, for example, a family member or friend's name pops up in a police blotter or if a company you used to work for is being written about. It is completely reasonable for ethical publications to find another person to report on a story or complete a critique if it would be inappropriate for a writer to cover a subject, as it was in this case, and there are typically guidelines for such instances.

 

[atheistium]

I plan on catching up on the rest of this topic over the next day because I have a lot of questions, but I just want to address this specific statement before anyone with less journalism knowledge takes it as fact.

As a journalist your job is to disclose to your readers if you have a prior relationship with a subject you are writing about. It is common (and I've done this before myself) for a reporter to inform their boss that they cannot write about a subject because of said relationship. If, for example, a family member or friend's name pops up in a police blotter or if a company you used to work for is being written about. It is completely reasonable for ethical publications to find another person to report on a story or complete a critique if it would be inappropriate for a writer to cover a subject, as it was in this case, and there are typically guidelines for such instances.

I think it's a bit different if you work at a company full time than doing a few days of freelance for them internally. And if this was the case then a lot of journalists have a lot of explaining to do.

If, say, I had worked at Square Enix for a year as a PR rep or community manager then I don't think I should be writing about Square's products. That's fair dos.

I've done two mock reviews in 6 days total while I was still at university. I've got the publisher on my CV and on my Linkedin. It was a very brief time in my career which I won't be repeating.

 

[Htown]

There was a specific triple A title in 2012 where the publisher didn't use any mock reviewers from the previous year's similar triple A release, ostensibly because of what they had to say about certain elements about the 2011 game. It didn't turn out well for them.

Assassin's Creed?

 

[boutrosinit]

I thought that rule would already be in place at most reputable outlets. I could see freelancers doing it, but I have to believe it could hurt you if it limits what titles you can review and cover. Especially if you want to get promoted.

Freelancers would also have to worry about doing too many reviews for one company and the contact they have with the people who make the games. Do they work in the office or do they do it using a third party like Aegies said?

All of these situations have different ramifications for how an outlet covers a game.

True. I was based in the UK and only ever did a few U.S things. The UK has harder laws for journalism, but I found more integrity working with the U.S.

EGM, under the iron rule of Dan Shoe would NOT let Eidos pay for a trip I had to take to Denmark to see a Hitman game. In the UK, I *never* saw this questioned. PRs always paid. So EGM editorial had a budget for trips and paid for my trip that way.

Some outlets (small) just did not have the budget to cover it and relied on PR for this. Others (big - those who house many publications under one brand) had budget but didn't want to spend it, especially if they felt PR would offer it. Cutting costs and Bottom Line to them >>> Journo integrity.

It was the first time I'd experienced that and it *did* make me feel more like a 'visitor' to Eidos than a 'guest', though of course, the guys at Eidos were very hospitable and fun to be around.

From my perspective looking back, fault here is very easy to point toward the publishing management not paying / putting budget aside for trips unless they were big ones like E3.

Even then, most UK journos, particularly freelancers for major broadsheets I knew would be flown out and paid for by EA and Microsoft.

It would be very easy to go OOOOO! EVIL EA AND MICROSOFT!!!! But no. It was how bloody cheap and uncaring for editorial integrity the bosses at Future Publishing, Dennis and others were, at least during my experiences there, that put journos in a position to look to other funding sources.

Which of course leads to what is blatantly a compromised position of integrity. But then the writer, trying to be competitive, gets to go to E3 and get free things, play games all day and have a lovely holiday.


I was a freelancer, but mainly because the full time pay offered at outlets I worked for was a shambles. Freelancers get a way better deal, just without security.

Wow. I *so* do NOT miss working as a writer for the big pubs in the UK. Loved the guys I worked with, *hated* management and bullshit such as the above.

Oh. And being paid 6 months late was always fun.

 

[Ragingbegal]

I think it's a bit different if you work at a company full time than doing a few days of freelance for them internally. And if this was the case then a lot of journalists have a lot of explaining to do.

If, say, I had worked at Square Enix for a year as a PR rep or community manager then I don't think I should be writing about Square's products. That's fair dos.

I've done two mock reviews in 6 days total while I was still at university. I've got the publisher on my CV and on my Linkedin. It was a very brief time in my career which I won't be repeating.

In that case, you would have been OK to do the review as long as you disclosed in the review that you had previously done small freelance/mock review (whatever you want to call it) work for Square Enix. That way people could have read your review with the knowledge you'd accepted payment from the publisher in the past and could have taken that into account in your writing.
Not disclosing that is exactly what led to all this controversy and it is a great illustration of the importance of being open to your readers.

 

[atheistium]

In that case, you would have been OK to do the review as long as you disclosed in the review that you had previously done small freelance/mock review (whatever you want to call it) work for Square Enix. That way people could have read your review with the knowledge you'd accepted payment from the publisher in the past and could have taken that into account in your writing.
Not disclosing that is exactly what led to all this controversy and it is a great illustration of the importance of being open to your readers.

I am open with the audience that reads my work regularly. I've blogged about what I've done. It's on my Linkedin. I'm usually a very public person. I don't think having to disclose something I did once ages ago every time I write a review is essentially needed.

Also if that's the way it should be then you'd have a shock with how many people would suddenly have to start disclosing these things.

Which of course leads to what is blatantly a compromised position of integrity. But then the writer, trying to be competitive, gets to go to E3 and get free things, play games all day and have a lovely holiday.

What E3 did you go to!? Holiday? Free shit? Leaflets, lines and illness was what I experienced.

 

[bigdaddygamebot]

To quote Bramwell direct from his piece on Eurogamer.

It was almost direct except you left out this part.

The answer is that Lauren Wainwright threatened us with legal action and made it clear she would not back down, at which point we took legal advice and ultimately made the decision to remove the paragraphs. It was not a decision that I took lightly. One objection to this action that I've read online is that there was no libel. All I can really say is that the advice we received meant that removing the offending text and apologising to Lauren was the right course of action to take. We also considered the fact that the article wasn't really about her but about all of us, and I felt that the edited version did not change Rab's meaning.

Wow, you're shifty.

 

[atheistium]

It was almost direct except you left out this part.

Wow, you're shifty.

Genuine mistake. Apparently 2 emails to EG is relentless.

 

[Ragingbegal]

Also if that's the way it should be then you'd have a shock with how many people would suddenly have to start disclosing these things.

Pointing at other writers doesn't make it any less a problem. Low standards is not an excuse for your breaching of an ethical standard. In the real journalism industry careers are quickly destroyed by competitors over this kind of thing, and rightly so.

You're young, so you have a chance to recover professionally from this, but only if you learn something from it.

 

[atheistium]

Pointing at other writers doesn't make it any less a problem. Low standards is not an excuse for your breaching of an ethical standard. In the real journalism industry careers are quickly destroyed by competitors over this kind of thing, and rightly so.

You're young, so you have a chance to recover professionally from this, but only if you learn something from it.

I was making a point here. People are happy to point the finger at me when it's not just a problem with me.

I've admitted my mistakes. I've learned from them. This is why I'm here.

 

[bigdaddygamebot]

Genuine mistake. Apparently 2 emails to EG is relentless.

I'm pretty sure I could send just one email that would make it clear to the recipient that I was going to my lawyer and not backing down from it.

So your counter is just...yeah...no.

 

[atheistium]

I'm pretty sure I could send just one email that would make it clear to the recipient that I was going to my lawyer and not backing down from it.

So your counter is just...yeah...no.

And your avoidance of what Bramwell just said is interesting too.

End of the day I've said I've regretted it what I said in that email. Publicly and privately.

 

[Neuromancer]

So... What's next for you Lauren? I am curious.

Glad to see you learned from the experience.

 

[El-Suave]

While this thread is up again - on a pretty big German games podcast (Game One) the hosts spoke of one of the recent PR stunts by Ubisoft:

Ubisoft apparently sent a box of party supplies (wigs, sparkly dust etc.) to German media outlets along with Just Dance 4. So far so harmless - but now comes the juicy part: the editorial team who post the "craziest" video of their Just Dance 4 antics on their website has the chance to win €750 to set up a party for their editorial team.

That stunt probably wasn't just limited to Germany, but I can't be sure of course - anyway, if you see that your favorite outlet has posted a video about their fun "Just Dance 4" party, you know there might have been an ulterior motive.

 

[atheistium]

So... What's next for you Lauren? I am curious.

Glad to see you learned from the experience.

Probably not the answer people want to see but just try slowly get back on track. If it doesn't work out then it doesn't work out but this has been my dream for years as sad and pathetic as that sounds and making mistakes is part of life.

 

[boutrosinit]

I am open with the audience that reads my work regularly. I've blogged about what I've done. It's on my Linkedin. I'm usually a very public person. I don't think having to disclose something I did once ages ago every time I write a review is essentially needed.

Also if that's the way it should be then you'd have a shock with how many people would suddenly have to start disclosing these things.


What E3 did you go to!? Holiday? Free shit? Leaflets, lines and illness was what I experienced.

I went during the hayday of limited edition Xbox 360 faceplates and Ebay. I got shit for Ebaying one I got from an event once. Trips were paid for A LOT until the economy took a big fat shit. Pretty sure the pubs had their lists of who they were taking each year. Dunno if that still happens. Usually the broadsheet freelancers would get the royal treatment.

Rooms at the Mondrian, free flight and so forth.

 

[Jackpot]

To quote Bramwell direct from his piece on Eurogamer.

Well, why don't you make use of those law studies you were crowing about and explain the libel? Rab said that even though he's sure you aren't in the pocket of the Tomb Raider PR team, your actions can cast a cloud of suspicion that stops him personally from taking your views as unbiased.

And instantly I am suspicious. I am suspicious of this journalist's apparent love for Tomb Raider. I am asking myself whether she's in the pocket of the Tomb Raider PR team. I'm sure she isn't, but the doubt is there.

And as subseqent research showed, you were deep in their pockets.

And either Bramwell is lying over the threat of a lawsuit or you are. Which is it?

 

[atheistium]

Well, why don't you make use of those law studies you were crowing about and explain the libel? Rab said that even though he's sure you aren't in the pocket of the Tomb Raider PR team, your actions can cast a cloud of suspicion that stops him personally from taking your views as unbiased.

And as subseqent research showed, you were deep in their pockets.

And either Bramwell is lying over the threat of a lawsuit or you are. Which is it?

How am I DEEP in their pockets? I've done two freelance jobs for them. What kind of pay packet do you think I got!?

It heavily implied I was corrupt. I got abuse for it. It caused distress.

Also there was no lawsuit. Neither did Bramwell say there was. The only people who spoke to legal teams were EG themselves.

 

[bigdaddygamebot]

And your avoidance of what Bramwell just said is interesting too.

The libel lawsuit.


Someone is lying.

 

[Lactose_Intolerant]

There was no lawsuit, just the threat of legal action is all it took.

 

[JABEE]

How am I DEEP in their pockets? I've done two freelance jobs for them. What kind of pay packet do you think I got!?

It heavily implied I was corrupt. I got abuse for it. It caused distress.

Also there was no lawsuit. Neither did Bramwell say there was. The only people who spoke to legal teams were EG themselves.

Did MCV know about this email? Did MCV's editor know about the EG article? Would a reasonable person take the email you sent as a threat of legal action with the backing of MCV?

Do you still have the contents of the message you sent? Is Bramwell lying about the threat of libel?

 

[atheistium]

Did MCV know about this email? Did MCV's editor know about the EG article? Would a reasonable person take the email you sent as a threat of legal action with the backing of MCV?

Do you still have the contents of the message you sent? Is Bramwell lying about the threat of libel?

They know I emailed. I know Intent Media (who own MCV) emailed EG separately about the article but in my article to Tom I very specific about it being between myself and Eurogamer because the article mentioned me and not my employer.

 

[Neuromancer]

It heavily implied I was corrupt.

Taking a look at the original article:

I am asking myself whether she's in the pocket of the Tomb Raider PR team. I'm sure she isn't, but the doubt is there.

Sounds more questioning than heavily implying, and the conclusion he reached was that you weren't.

I can see why it was upsetting to you though.

 

[Dick Justice]

Well, why don't you make use of those law studies you were crowing about and explain the libel? Rab said that even though he's sure you aren't in the pocket of the Tomb Raider PR team, your actions can cast a cloud of suspicion that stops him personally from taking your views as unbiased.



And as subseqent research showed, you were deep in their pockets.

And either Bramwell is lying over the threat of a lawsuit or you are. Which is it?

Yeah, wasn't she gloating about how her law studies degree or whatever helped out right after the article was edited?

 

[atheistium]

Taking a look at the original article:
Sounds more questioning than heavily implying, and the conclusion he reached was that you weren't.

I can see why it was upsetting to you though.

That and the fact that hundreds of people sent me death threats and called me a shill based purely off of that alone (prior to contacting EG)

 

[JABEE]

They know I emailed. I know Intent Media (who own MCV) emailed EG separately about the article but in my article to Tom I very specific about it being between myself and Eurogamer because the article mentioned me and not my employer.

Do you know what MCV said in the separate email? Rab's article could also be seen as an attack on MCV's editorial control if it was libelous to you. Did MCV threaten suit?

 

[Neuromancer]

That and the fact that hundreds of people sent me death threats and called me a shill based purely off of that alone (prior to contacting EG)

The death threats and personal attacks were fucked up, I think we can all agree on that.

 

[atheistium]

Do you know what MCV said in the separate email? Rab's article could also be seen as an attack on MCV's editorial control if it was libelous to you. Did MCV threaten suit?

From what I'm aware no legal threats were made by Intent though I'm unaware of what was said in emails

The only legal threat was me suggestion I'd seek legal advice as I found the article unfair and defamatory.

 

[zkylon]

It's always worth talking about. It's a sensitive subject but one we're all passionate about. Though I've mixed feelings about some points in Rob's article (mainly about feeling comfortable with PR) I think the overall topic is an important one.

I don't have much authority with this because I was only a full time staff writer at MCV for a few months. All my other jobs have been freelance which have seen me have complete freedom and control over what I submit.

Websites and magazines survive with advertising deals which (sometimes) include content packages.

Most of the time these are just things like having to post a certain number of stories that month on a game. I'm not sure if it has to be positive or not but content can sometimes be dictated by that.

Thing is you do your job. If you're told to write about said game you write about it. You can't turn around to your boss and say no. I've never been asked to write about a game in a positive light because of advertisers and I hope that most staff writers don't even have to deal with that kind of request let alone make a choice to fulfil it or not.

My honest feeling is that if there is corruption happening then it's happening at a much higher level than the people who are writing it. Sure there might be the odd dodgy writer but I've never experienced it myself and neither have people I've spoken to about it.


(trying to answer all these so sorry if I'm a bit slow)

This is what I have a problem with, specially if you're in a position that affects thousands if not millions.

Your main responsability as a journalist is towards your audience, not your boss, and if you don't like that you should just get another job.

I know that's how 99% of game journalists are, but it doesn't make it any better.

I'm glad you seem like you genuinely learned from your mistakes, but I wouldn't want to read the opinion of someone who can't stand up to their boss (i.e. reason why I can't take seriously gaming journalism, no matter how much I'd love to). It seems to me like a terrible way to see your job, there are other ways to put food on the table without compromising your principles.

 

[Father_Brain]

Talking to colleagues who have done or do them, mock reviews are the stage where the team wants the least amount of bullshit possible. They want to know what to expect, which is why I'm surprised when publishers say they were surprised by critical reaction to their games. In all of the interviews I just did for Polygon, I did ask about mock reviews, but it wouldn't have been an immediate deal-breaker.

EDIT: So developers want honesty and publishers don't? Guess that makes sense.

 

[Suairyu]

It heavily implied I was corrupt. I got abuse for it. It caused distress.

No, it did not. It was explaining how gaming journalists can appear corrupt through lack of diligence rather than actual corruption. There was no statement, suggestion or implication to the effect that you were corrupt.

Abuse you unfortunately received from internet assholes does not magically make the implication there or Rab at fault.

The only legal threat was me suggestion I'd seek legal advice as I found the article unfair and defamatory.

What about it was unfair and defamatory? Specifically? Bearing in mind that Rab never so much as insinuated you were on the take?

Again, the article's point was to demonstrate how people like yourselves should be more careful about your relationship with PR, as it may appear to be something it isn't. The evidence used was things you had made publically available, plus an explanation of his own initial reaction as a reader.

 

[JABEE]

From what I'm aware no legal threats were made by Intent though I'm unaware of what was said in emails

The only legal threat was me suggestion I'd seek legal advice as I found the article unfair and defamatory.

You really should find out what they said. Bramwell seemed to connect your threat of seeking legal advise, and whatever MCV said in the separate email as a serious cause for action.

 

[faridmon]

When people your senior do it then you think it's ok. Obviously I see it a bit differently now.

When your commander kills innocent people, then its OK to do it.

 

[AlphaDump]

It's always worth talking about. It's a sensitive subject but one we're all passionate about. Though I've mixed feelings about some points in Rob's article (mainly about feeling comfortable with PR) I think the overall topic is an important one.

I don't have much authority with this because I was only a full time staff writer at MCV for a few months. All my other jobs have been freelance which have seen me have complete freedom and control over what I submit.

Websites and magazines survive with advertising deals which (sometimes) include content packages.

Most of the time these are just things like having to post a certain number of stories that month on a game. I'm not sure if it has to be positive or not but content can sometimes be dictated by that.

Thing is you do your job. If you're told to write about said game you write about it. You can't turn around to your boss and say no. I've never been asked to write about a game in a positive light because of advertisers and I hope that most staff writers don't even have to deal with that kind of request let alone make a choice to fulfil it or not.

My honest feeling is that if there is corruption happening then it's happening at a much higher level than the people who are writing it. Sure there might be the odd dodgy writer but I've never experienced it myself and neither have people I've spoken to about it.


(trying to answer all these so sorry if I'm a bit slow)

No that is absolutely your role. As an auditor, I would be in jail if I was told to not report something because the client would be mad at me. You are the last line of integrity for the general public, just like myself.

You haven't learned a thing.

 

[atheistium]

This is what I have a problem with, specially if you're in a position that affects thousands if not millions.

Your main responsability as a journalist is towards your audience, not your boss, and if you don't like that you should just get another job.

I know that's how 99% of game journalists are, but it doesn't make it any better.

I'm glad you seem like you genuinely learned from your mistakes, but I wouldn't want to read the opinion of someone who can't stand up to their boss (i.e. reason why I can't take seriously gaming journalism, no matter how much I'd love to). It seems to me like a terrible way to see your job, there are other ways to put food on the table without compromising your principles.

If there was something honestly questionable a boss asked me to do then of course I'd question it. Though I've luckily never had to deal with that.

I'm talking about people in general during a time of job uncertainty and magazines closing more often than they should be

No, it did not. It was explaining how gaming journalists can appear corrupt through lack of diligence rather than actual corruption. There was no statement, suggestion or implication to the effect that you were corrupt.

Abuse you unfortunately received from internet assholes does not magically make the implication there or Rab at fault.

What about it was unfair and defamatory? Specifically? Bearing in mind that Rab never so much as insinuated you were on the take?

Again, the article's point was to demonstrate how people like yourselves should be more careful about your relationship with PR, as it may appear to be something it isn't. The evidence used was things you had made publically available, plus an explanation of his own initial reaction as a reader.

People read it different ways. I read it that way and so did the people who send me vile abuse.

But naming names is a real delicate thing to do. Especially when you go on to say that there are far worse people doing it. If you're going to name anyone then name the worst for it.

When you name someone in an article about corruption then it's a very scary thing indeed. Adding "I don't think so but the doubt is there" doesn't suddenly make the last sentence about me being in the Tomb Raider PR team's pockets any less damaging.

Again, as I said before. I regret reacting.

 

[Suairyu]

When your commander kills innocent people, then its OK to do it.

That comparison isn't helping anyone, faridmon.

 

[Wrestlemania]

If you're told to write about said game you write about it. You can't turn around to your boss and say no.

gamesjournalism.gif

 

[aegies]

EDIT: So developers want honesty and publishers don't? Guess that makes sense.

If that's what it sounded like i was implying, I apologize. Most publishers want that honesty.

Although, as someone who often gives games low scores, I can count on one hand the number of times a PR person or developer was aggressive or angry to my face about it. I also tend to give honest answers about my issues with a game at a preview event, which I understand is uncommon.

 

[atheistium]

No that is absolutely your role. As an auditor, I would be in jail if I was told to not report something because the client would be mad at me. You are the last line of integrity for the general public, just like myself.

You haven't learned a thing.

Hang on.

If your boss told you to write a preview about a game and you turned around and said no that would be totally cool?

Of course I'd question if someone asked me to write POSITIVE coverage of something. That's totally different.

 

[dave is ok]

Just wanted to say that I appreciate you coming here and defending yourself. Most wouldn't if they were in your position. I know I wouldn't

Anyway, it's good reading actual back and forth.

 

[faridmon]

That comparison isn't helping anyone, faridmon.

sorry

but it doesn't mean that its ok to accept doubtful things if your seniors do it regularly.

 

[AlphaDump]

Hang on.

If your boss told you to write a preview about a game and you turned around and said no that would be totally cool?

Of course I'd question if someone asked me to write POSITIVE coverage of something. That's totally different.

I'll re-iterate my point - before i go off to a client site, i have to legally fill out a professional independence form that lists all of my affiliations, along with my family members, otherwise, i dont get to tell the story.

 

[NateDrake]

If that's what it sounded like i was implying, I apologize. Most publishers want that honesty.

Although, as someone who often gives games low scores, I can count on one hand the number of times a PR person or developer was aggressive or angry to my face about it. I also tend to give honest answers about my issues with a game at a preview event, which I understand is uncommon.

When I wrote for a site a long time ago, I would also tell PR my concerns during preview sessions. The problem I encountered was certain PR would just brush it off as the code was unfinished. Some would gladly note the problems I expressed to them at the preview event and stated in the article.

 

[sixghost]

I'll re-iterate my point - before i go off to a client site, i have to legally fill out a professional independence form that lists all of my affiliations, along with my family members, otherwise, i dont get to tell the story.

You, or your family members, can't even hold stock in the company you are auditing, correct?

 

[atheistium]

sorry

but it doesn't mean that its ok to accept doubtful things if your seniors do it regularly.

I get what you mean but the example was a bit extreme

Thing is you look up to successful people and how they do what they do and try (in a way) replicate that and then customise it to suit you.

I can only blame my own naivety on this one. And as I said before it's something I've changed my opinions on.

 

[AlphaDump]

You, or your family members, can't even hold stock in the company you are auditing, correct?

correct

 

[SpacedCadette]

When you name someone in an article about corruption then it's a very scary thing indeed. Adding "I don't think so but the doubt is there" doesn't suddenly make the last sentence about me being in the Tomb Raider PR team's pockets any less damaging.

Again, as I said before. I regret reacting.

This why context is so important, which Rab's article was very clear about. It was your glaring lapse in judgment and common sense that were damaging, not the article.

 

[2San]

I'll re-iterate my point - before i go off to a client site, i have to legally fill out a professional independence form that lists all of my affiliations, along with my family members, otherwise, i dont get to tell the story.

I think this is an unfair comparison. The difference here is that you have an actual legal obligation to do this. Being a CPA has a legal status and is a title recognized by the Government. Anyone can call themselves a Journalist.

 

[AlphaDump]

I think this is an unfair comparison. The difference here is that you have an actual legal obligation to do this. Being a CPA has a legal status and is a title recognized by the Government. Anyone can call themselves a Journalist.

I am not a CPA. It is a general standard if you want to call yourself an auditor.

 

[2San]

I am not a CPA. It is a general standard if you want to call yourself an auditor.

The point still stands I guess. When you call yourself a Journalist you aren't bound by any legal obligation afaik.