Support NeoGAF

[Fistwell]

Stating that reaching out to kotaku to get their side of the story would have been the right thing to do is certainly fair.

However, kotaku-affiliated writer complaining someone didn't reach out to kotaku to get their side of the story is also, oh I don't know.... kind of ironic?

Kotaku and their sensational Titles...

Warcraft-Playing Bodybuilder Barely Misses Donkey Kong World Record

 

[jschreier]

Why? Because you're getting paid for it. If you get a base salary as you indicated earlier and do a sufficient number good articles to not get your editor-in-chief to get on your case and aren't concerned about commission-based extra funds from pumping out huge click-inducing articles, I'm sure there's some extra time you have to work on something extra that won't necessarily generate as much bonus revenue, but is something you enjoy.

I'm not privy to Kotaku's internal page notification or how you guys divy up your assignments or your quota/pay regarding base pay of the quality/quantity of an article, so I can't comment with any certainty, but I'm sure you do either write enough other articles that generate larger interest in clicks/etc OR get paid enough on your base salary and either aren't concerned about that extra income or just have a passion for what you do that leaves you enough time and desire to work on XSEED or other smaller projects. Otherwise I can't imagine you'd continue to do what you do.

I'm not denying that you can have a passion for reporting on smaller focus articles such as XSEED or a weekly jRPG column , but to deny that click-based monetary rewards have a potential effect on how articles are titled/framed by saying you do niche stuff which obviously wouldn't be generating any progress towards a bonus as well seems to be muddying the waters.

Well, hold on. We're talking about two different questions here: one that you addressed in your last post, which I was responding to, and one that you just brought up now.

The first question: is Kotaku's #1 goal to serve readers or bring in traffic? I would argue that it's to serve readers, and the fact that we spend a lot of time on pieces that might not bring in tons of traffic is evidence of that. I would also argue that those two goals aren't necessarily at odds with one another: serving readers with interesting stories also often gets people reading and sharing those stories, which brings in traffic.

The second question: how does the company's thirst for traffic affect our headlines/content? Now this is more interesting, and far more complicated. We write headlines that, ideally, make people want to read our stories. Of course, we are responsible for making sure those headlines aren't inaccurate or misleading in any way, but here's my question: what's wrong with writing headlines that make people want to read?

 

[Toadofsky]

but here's my question: what's wrong with writing headlines that make people want to read?

Because numerous headlines that Kotaku has put on in the past are the equivalent of tabloids, maybe even worse than that.

I'd be lying if I said Kotaku hasn't written good articles before, the recent one about Silicon Knights was as good a FACTUAL piece we could ever get on the inside story of how that company fell apart.

But repeatedly, they bait readers to the lowest common denominator. And while that is up to the readers to decide if they want to read "This Japanese thing's weird", or "HOT CHICK LIKES GAMES AND COSPLAYZ DUUUUUUUR!", journalism is a profession, and it's supposed to professional on its reporting. 24 hour cable news networks are a joke, and I'd almost be inclined to say that they've destroyed journalistic integrity if it wasn't for ones like RTV or even The Young Turks. But that doesn't mean that journalism quality (or game journalism) should go into the same nosedive as them.

Destructoid has often hid behind "we're just bloggers" argument, when they make stupid posts, and that's an incredibly weak, and honestly, loaded argument. If Kotaku basically uses that, well, there you go.

 

[Shinta]

what's wrong with writing headlines that make people want to read?

Nothing unless they're inaccurate, or insulting to people. You can also get people to "want to read" by promoting inflammatory statements so people click just to argue how the story is wrong. You can also get people to "want to read" by posting inflammatory things that will get people to fight other groups.

Your seemingly innocent questions always leave me genuinely wondering whether you're 1) trolling us and trying to string us along with obvious devil's advocate style questions, or 2) one of the most naive journalists on the planet.

"Click bait" is an extremely well known term used to describe articles like this. Here's a few examples of discourse in the media just on the subject of click bait I found in 4 seconds with Google.

25 shameless examples of click-bait trolling from Village Voice Media’s music sections

Katie Roiphe’s Click Bait Win is a Discourse Fail
The inflammatory essayist angers the feminist twitterverse but doesn’t add any value to public discourse

Or maybe you've heard of "sensationalism."

Some tactics include being deliberately obtuse,[4] appealing to emotions,[5] being controversial, intentionally omitting facts and information,[6] being loud, self-centered and acting to obtain attention.[5] Trivial information and events are sometimes misrepresented and exaggerated as important or significant, and often includes stories about the actions of individuals and small groups of people,[1] the content of which is often insignificant and irrelevant relative to the macro-level day-to-day events that occur globally. Furthermore, the content and subject matter typically doesn't affect the lives of the masses[1] and doesn't affect society, and instead is broadcast and printed to attract viewers and readers

How can you not already know this, and know what in theory, would be wrong with articles like this? That's always the question I find myself asking after reading your posts. Don't they cover this kind of thing in most journalism ethics discussions?

For two examples of this style of headline writing gone wrong just within the last week: 1) calling Kamiya "clueless" when he merely said he wasn't interested. He didn't actually say if he's informed one way or the other in the tweets you guys showcased. Not to mention, people pointed out that just a few months earlier Platinum games' head was literally visiting Valve in person. Not only is all of Japan not clueless about PC games, but not even all of Platinum Games is. 2) The article posted about the "bodybuilder" who isn't actually a bodybuilder, and felt the article misrepresented who he is in a negative way.

 

[Lactose_Intolerant]

Your seemingly innocent questions always leave me genuinely wondering whether you're 1) trolling us and trying to string us along with obvious devil's advocate style questions, or 2) one of the most naive journalists on the planet.

This is how I feel. I appreciate you taking the time to open up and discuss your job and answer questions. It is just 90% of the stuff you say in this thread sounds either naive, ironic, or everyone else is doing it so where is the outrage type responses.

 

[jschreier]

How can you not already know this, and know what in theory, would be wrong with articles like this? That's always the question I find myself asking after reading your posts. Don't they cover this kind of thing in most journalism ethics discussions?

For two examples of this style of headline writing gone wrong just within the last week: 1) calling Kamiya "clueless" when he merely said he wasn't interested. He didn't actually say if he's informed one way or the other in the tweets you guys showcased. Not to mention, people pointed out that just a few months earlier Platinum games' head was literally visiting Valve in person. Not only is all of Japan not clueless about PC games, but not even all of Platinum Games is. 2) The article posted about the "bodybuilder" who isn't actually a bodybuilder, and felt the article misrepresented who he is in a negative way.

Your first example is a mistake that was changed accordingly.

As for your second example, check out this article: http://www.examiner.com/article/former-warcraft-player-almost-breaks-donkey-kong-arcade-world-record

"I'm a 21-year-old French Canadian who enjoys bodybuilding," Lemay said in an exclusive chat.

I certainly don't think it's sensationalistic to call him a bodybuilder. He says he does bodybuilding, so he's a bodybuilder. Stephen changed the headline to "bodybuilding fan," which I suppose is technically more accurate? Not a big deal, IMO, no matter what the subject of the article says.

Regardless. We are constantly talking and tweaking and striving to write good headlines that are appealing without being misleading. It doesn't benefit the site to get people to click on a headline and get angry because they feel like they were tricked into clicking, or they feel like an article's title doesn't reflect what's inside. That inhibits long-term growth. Long-term growth, I think -- and remember, these are my personal thoughts, not me speaking for Kotaku - is far more important than any short-term bursts of traffic we might get from one particularly grabby, but inaccurate headline.

So yes. I understand what you're saying, but I don't think Kotaku's headlines or stories are intentionally sensationalistic. That's my point. We sometimes make mistakes, yes, but the goal is to write things that people find interesting and want to read, not to start Internet controversies or piss off our readers. When I write a headline, my thought is "how can I make this appealing to as many people as possible without making it inaccurate or misleading or unnecessarily hyperbolic?" So I'll ask again: what's wrong with that approach?

 

[Shosai]

Repeatedly pushing inaccurate stories would hurt any outlet's credibility in the long run. There's already a minority of gamers that have pledged not to give kotaku any pageviews, and they share articles on pastebin. Kotaku can lie in whatever grave they dig for themselves.

 

[BeauRoger]

Any word from Geoff himself yet? He did say a tweet some time ago that he would comment on it "at a later time" or something along those lines.

 

[BlazinAm]

Repeatedly pushing inaccurate stories would hurt any outlet's credibility in the long run. There's already a minority of gamers that have pledged not to give kotaku any pageviews, and they share articles on pastebin. Kotaku can lie in whatever grave they dig for themselves.

That's a thing.

Any word from Geoff himself yet? He did say a tweet some time ago that he would comment on it "at a later time" or something along those lines.

No and I don't think he will or needs to.

 

[MC Safety]

No and I don't think he will or needs to.

Yeah, I'm not sure what he might say that would assuage anyone. And, really, why bother?

 

[faceless007]

So yes. I understand what you're saying, but I don't think Kotaku's headlines or stories are intentionally sensationalistic. That's my point. We sometimes make mistakes, yes, but the goal is to write things that people find interesting and want to read, not to start Internet controversies or piss off our readers. When I write a headline, my thought is "how can I make this appealing to as many people as possible without making it inaccurate or misleading or unnecessarily hyperbolic?" So I'll ask again: what's wrong with that approach?

I don't think you're obtuse enough to actually think that's what the argument is about, so trying to reframe the discussion like that just comes across as disingenuous. Obviously, when you state the process as mundanely as that, there's nothing wrong with it. But the argument is that often you guys (not necessarily you personally) do write inaccurate and misleading and hyperbolic headlines, whatever your intent is. Hence the complaints. If you say your goal is to avoid that, well, that's encouraging to hear, but the evidence doesn't necessarily bear it out.

Sensationalism is a different, but related problem. Are you really going to defend articles like the Jade Raymond piece or E3 booth babe galleries? I've said this before and if you replied, I didn't see it: it seems like whenever someone brings up the the inarguably trashy or prurient stories, you try to deflect attention to the legitimately good stories you run. And those are good, but it seems like you prefer to run away from the trash instead of argue for their merits, because you can't defend them with anything other than "it's what readers want to see." Well, if that's your main justification, you're not a journalist, you're a tabloid writer. Again, speaking about Kotaku as a whole, not necessarily you.

I would analogize it to the Huffington Post. Now, they probably have some really good writers and contributors with intelligent commentary over there. But 95% of the site is trashy, tabloidy, lowest-common denominator gossip that wouldn't be out of place on TMZ. Obviously, I can't really criticize HuffPo from a business perspective or for lack of pageviews, and if your strategy is to be the HuffPo of gaming, congratulations, I guess. But I can't be bothered to wade through the crap on their site, so I don't visit, and the same for Kotaku. Their insistence on stuffing their site with mindless click bait and sexist listicles gives them a certain reputation and loses them more discerning readers. Again, if your strategy is just to get as many readers as possible, then that's your right, but then don't be surprised when people call out that strategy for what it is.

 

[jschreier]

I don't think you're obtuse enough to actually think that's what the argument is about, so trying to reframe the discussion like that just comes across as disingenuous. Obviously, when you state the process as mundanely as that, there's nothing wrong with it. But the argument is that often you guys (not necessarily you personally) do write inaccurate and misleading and hyperbolic headlines, whatever your intent is. Hence the complaints. If you say your goal is to avoid that, well, that's encouraging to hear, but the evidence doesn't necessarily bear it out.

Well, I think the perception of how frequently we make mistakes is always going to be a subjective thing. If you don't read Kotaku regularly, and all you see is GAF threads or Reddit posts full of complaints about us (some legitimate, others not-so-legitimate), you might feel like we're misleading or inaccurate all the time. On the other hand, if you read and enjoy Kotaku every day, you might feel differently. So you could shout "you guys do this often" and I could shout back "no, we really don't" until we both run out of breath, but that seems futile, no? The best way to discuss this would be to keep bringing up specifics, as we have been.

Sensationalism is a different, but related problem. Are you really going to defend articles like the Jade Raymond piece or E3 booth babe galleries? I've said this before and if you replied, I didn't see it: it seems like whenever someone brings up the the inarguably trashy or prurient stories, you try to deflect attention to the legitimately good stories you run. And those are good, but it seems like you prefer to run away from the trash instead of argue for their merits, because you can't defend them with anything other than "it's what readers want to see." Well, if that's your main justification, you're not a journalist, you're a tabloid writer. Again, speaking about Kotaku as a whole, not necessarily you.

I really have no idea what's up with that Jade Raymond piece. You'll have to ask Mike. But that was a very long time ago. Kotaku has changed quite a bit since 2007. And booth babe galleries? I don't know what happened in the past, but I can tell you that since I started at Kotaku (Feb 2012) we have definitely not run any of those.

I'd love to hear what recent stories you think are unarguably trashy.

I would analogize it to the Huffington Post. Now, they probably have some really good writers and contributors with intelligent commentary over there. But 95% of the site is trashy, tabloidy, lowest-common denominator gossip that wouldn't be out of place on TMZ. Obviously, I can't really criticize HuffPo from a business perspective or for lack of pageviews, and if your strategy is to be the HuffPo of gaming, congratulations, I guess. But I can't be bothered to wade through the crap on their site, so I don't visit, and the same for Kotaku. Their insistence on stuffing their site with mindless click bait and sexist listicles gives them a certain reputation and loses them more discerning readers. Again, if your strategy is just to get as many readers as possible, then that's your right, but then don't be surprised when people call out that strategy for what it is.

I think your opinion of Kotaku is based on what it might have been like years ago, not what it's like today. I can't think of any stories we've run since I started that could be considered sexist.

 

[Oersted]

Hidei Kayima makes twitter comments about Steam, Kotaku extrapolates it as some general mentality of Japanese culture, going as far as assuming that cloud gaming especifically refers to steam.

https://twitter.com/PG_kamiya/status/288686682197356544

This is a really bad piece in general, not only it jump to conclusions at an absurd pace, but it misrepresents the Japanese industry. Not to mention Platinum games has expresed interest in porting their stuff to PC using Steam and having their main producer visiting Valve.

Erik Kain nailed it again.

If by "nailed it" you mean "wrote a story about Kotaku without reaching out to Kotaku for comment, therefore ignoring one of the basic principles of journalism" then sure!

This line, for example:

I’ve no idea who even came up with this headline (or how post-titling works at Kotaku)

He has no idea how our headline process works and makes no effort to reach out to Kotaku to find out. Instead, he just says "oh, I dunno how they do this." This is the type of blogging you guys want to encourage? Yeesh.

Kotaku and their sensational Titels...

Warcraft-Playing Bodybuilder Barely Misses Donkey Kong World Record

Rule 1. Don´t get problems with your employer.


Edit:

I think your opinion of Kotaku is based on what it might have been like years ago, not what it's like today. I can't think of any stories we've run since I started that could be considered sexist.

No sexism for 11 months? Well, challenge accepted

 

[idlethreats]

No sexism for 11 months? Well, challenge accepted

Well, Brian Ashcraft still works there, so it shouldn't be too steep of a challenge. ;-)

 

[Oersted]

Starting to search right now, some finds.

Moreover, these few dozen ladies are but a small fraction of the hundreds of booth professionals he has on his Flickr page, which we encourage you to check out.

Click through to see more of these beautiful ladies.
Our hotshoe Ian Merritt did the world a favor finding Miss Abarth, but there's something for everyone, especially if you like sparkly pantyhose or some traffic cop role play.

We encourage you, once you stop drooling, to post your favorite pictures of the show's booth professionals in Kinja below. If the picture isn't one of ours, don't forget to say where you found it.

Well, Brian Ashcraft still works there, so it shouldn't be too steep of a challenge. ;-)

Yeah, Plunkett seems to be the worst of the bunch( not really a Kotaku reader).

 

[jschreier]

Starting to search right now, some finds.

That is not Kotaku. You are linking to a Jalopnik article.

 

[Yagharek]

That is not Kotaku. You are linking to a Jalopnik article.

You guys seem happy to republish it.

 

[jschreier]

You guys seem happy to republish it.

We didn't republish it. Our site's layout has some weird quirks. One of which is that if you look at a tag page, ie http://kotaku.com/sandy-hook, the sidebar will show every Gawker Media article, not just Kotaku's. Then if you click one, it will say "republished from [site]" whether or not we've actually republished it.

Ex: http://kotaku.com/5974364/florida-a...-one-big-mass-media-conspiracy?tag=sandy-hook

 

[Incontinentia Buttocks]

"Continuing history of oppression and dominance by men against women". Sorry, I don't buy it. It may still happen in some cultures, or some stupid fools may think it's fine, but I like to believe this has changed. I hope it did.

I don't think "honey" is exclusively used to refer to women. And he wasn't criticising her for being a woman, he was criticising her for avoiding every question, and telling her it's no use to keep on doing that here.

I think some of you guys are trying to read too much between the lines, into things that were never said. It's funny how the only person to interpret the word as being derogatory to women is the one that would take offense at anything he considers sexist. Don't start a crusade against words, you won't gain anything. In the case of the N word, it was something that was exclusively used by white people as a derogatory term to black people (until they started using it themselves, changing its meaning). "Honey" isn't a derogatory term to women. It CAN be, like "darling" can be, like "sweetheart" can be; hell, like almost any word can be. But then we'll have to ban every word, for risk of it offending someone.

In short, he said "honey" to disregard her lack of answers, not her gender. Please people, stop looking at the world with the offensive glasses on, not everything is said in a misogynist way.

Check out this twitter feed to see how much of an issue sexism in the western world still is: https://twitter.com/EverydaySexism

 

[Wolves Evolve]

http://www.kotaku.com.au/2012/10/its-ladies-only-at-tokyos-dream-party/

http://www.kotaku.com.au/2012/09/fr...ed-the-fancy-outfits-we-unfortunately-missed/

http://www.kotaku.com.au/2012/12/hi...hot-pants-infamous-dictators-as-anime-ladies/

http://www.kotaku.com.au/2012/12/japans-love-affair-with-pigtails/
(That, Jason, was just five days before you posted your piece on how sexist Gameloft's christmas parties were.)

 

[Son of Cervantes]

In fairness to jschreier, those are from Kotaku Australia.

 

[Empty]

john walker tweeted this

https://twitter.com/botherer/status/291193291821682688

about the dead island uk special edition (there's a thread about it on the front page of gaf if you're unfamilar with the story http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=508399)

i hate pure press release regurgitation and this really exposes it for the free marketing that it so often is.

 

[MC Safety]

john walker tweeted this

https://twitter.com/botherer/status/291193291821682688

about the dead island uk special edition (there's a thread about it on the front page of gaf if you're unfamilar with the story.)

i hate lazy press release regurgitation and this really exposes it for the free marketing that it so often is.

I always disliked the style of "reporting" made popular by 1up wherein the reporter must comment and give an opinion on everything.

Honestly, if you're going to reprint a press release about a tacky statue, I don't need the writer to tell me how he feels. I can make up my own mind about it. Most times, a reprint of a press release doesn't require additional reporting.

 

[Cerebral Assassin]

I always disliked the style of "reporting" made popular by 1up wherein the reporter must comment and give an opinion on everything.

Honestly, if you're going to reprint a press release about a tacky statue, I don't need the writer to tell me how he feels. I can make up my own mind about it. Most times, a reprint of a press release doesn't require additional reporting.

That would be fine, as long as the site informs the reader that they are reading an official PR, how many of these sites will do that?

 

[idlethreats]

A Kotaku headline today: "Snow Dicks and Cute Characters: Winter Hijinks Cover Tokyo."

This is tabloid fodder.

 

[SpinningBirdKick]

This is tabloid fodder.

Fan boy fuel, link bait and tabloid titillation is games journalism these days.

Those wage and server costs don't pay themselves you know.

Video game journalolists have got to pay the bills some how.

With article counts and tight deadlines to meet, do you bust your balls to plan, research and report on an issue in depth? Or do you quickly shuffle around a few paragraphs of a press release or write a few lines of fluff for a picture you saw on twitter? Decisions, decisions...

It's not even worth getting upset about.

 

[Raynes]

Just realized a thread existed for general Kotaku dochebaggery, nice.
"Fox Reporter Tries Hard to Get Gaming Expert To Attack Violent Video Games"
I think a better headline would be "Kotaku douchebag editor fails to understand what playing devil's advocate means, uses perfect opportunity to create sensationalist inaccurate story". It was a completely fair interview with the reporter trying to probe the interviewee, it's how any balanced interview should go. Even at the end the interviewer's response implied video games don't make people violent. Did this poor retarded Kotaku editor really expect a fairer interview where the interviewer just agrees video games don't cause violence throughout?

 

[Oersted]

We didn't republish it. Our site's layout has some weird quirks. One of which is that if you look at a tag page, ie http://kotaku.com/sandy-hook, the sidebar will show every Gawker Media article, not just Kotaku's. Then if you click one, it will say "republished from [site]" whether or not we've actually republished it.

Ex: http://kotaku.com/5974364/florida-a...-one-big-mass-media-conspiracy?tag=sandy-hook

So if there stands "republished " on Kotaku, its not really republished? Just the mothership being sexistic? Confusing, don´t you think? Well, I´m gonna trust you on this one. Regardless, here another find. Classy stuff like "Thank this Japanese Porn Star for Edgy Cosplay". I´m gonna leave it with that. But while we are at it, am I only one having a bad taste in the mouth with this article? An article about sexual harassments with these pics seems a little bit odd.


Another topic. Something what is never really adressed, like self-reflection adressed, by gamers is violence in games.
Funny enough, there is an article about this topic by our famous Schreier. Well, kind of adressing. You kind of re-cited Colbert with this paragraph:

"And really, who among us doesn't look back and sigh when we think back to the good old days, when we all played SimCity and then immediately joined a gang of roving urban planners? The 90s were pretty weird."

Well, you could have put some effort behind your article/ research. Could have.

 

[ClosingADoor]

john walker tweeted this

https://twitter.com/botherer/status/291193291821682688

about the dead island uk special edition (there's a thread about it on the front page of gaf if you're unfamilar with the story http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=508399)

i hate pure press release regurgitation and this really exposes it for the free marketing that it so often is.

What's the problem with that. Do you also want your newspaper to give opinons about every event in the world? Sometimes news is just enough, not everything needs the writers opinion in it.

That would be fine, as long as the site informs the reader that they are reading an official PR, how many of these sites will do that?

If it's the press release reworded, why would they? It says in the article that "developer Deep Silver announced today." Isn't that enough? They did announce it, and this was in it. About 90% of the stuff you read in the media comes from press releases in one form of the other. There is no added value in mentioning that, as long as the article itself is objective and doesn't push the product (as in "buy this now, it's awesome". On the other hand, that would be the writers opinion then, so maybe Empty would find that better actually).

 

[Deitus]

What's the problem with that. Do you also want your newspaper to give opinons about every event in the world? Sometimes news is just enough, not everything needs the writers opinion in it.


If it's the press release reworded, why would they? It says in the article that "developer Deep Silver announced today." Isn't that enough? They did announce it, and this was in it. About 90% of the stuff you read in the media comes from press releases in one form of the other. There is no added value in mentioning that, as long as the article itself is objective and doesn't push the product (as in "buy this now, it's awesome". On the other hand, that would be the writers opinion then, so maybe Empty would find that better actually).

If the "news" speaks for itself, and there is no need for the writer to add anything to it, then why waste the effort of trying to reword the press release? Why break out the thesaurus and rearrange sentences to give the appearance of a unique thought when in actuality all you are doing is posting the exact content on the press release without contributing anything. Seems like it would be a lot easier and a lot more honest to just say "hey guys I got this press release in my email today" and quote the entire text of the release (or an excerpt if that's more practical).

 

[jschreier]

So if there stands "republished " on Kotaku, its not really republished? Just the mothership being sexistic? Confusing, don´t you think? Well, I´m gonna trust you on this one. Regardless, here another findAnother topic. Something what is never really adressed, like self-reflection adressed, by gamers is violence in games.
Funny enough, there is an article about this topic by our famous Schreier. Well, kind of adressing. You kind of re-cited Colbert with this paragraph:

"And really, who among us doesn't look back and sigh when we think back to the good old days, when we all played SimCity and then immediately joined a gang of roving urban planners? The 90s were pretty weird."

Well, you could have put some effort behind your article/ research. Could have.

You mean like this story, which I've been working on for weeks now? http://kotaku.com/5976733/do-video-...-an-in+depth-look-at-everything-we-know-today

 

[Jackpot]

You mean like this story, which I've been working on for weeks now? http://kotaku.com/5976733/do-video-...-an-in+depth-look-at-everything-we-know-today

You keep avoiding discussing the bilge that's posted on Kotaku by pointing out the bi-monthly non-joke article. You haven't answered his question and it's completely disingenuous to think the above ever does.

I direct you to my earlier post:

http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?p=46385638#post46385638

It's like acting as if the Daily Mail's occasional inside scoops means it's viewed as a respected broadsheet instead of tabloid trash.

 

[Oersted]

You mean like this story, which I've been working on for weeks now? http://kotaku.com/5976733/do-video-...-an-in+depth-look-at-everything-we-know-today

Hey Jason, thank yoou for the article, I´honestly gonna read it and i appreciate your work on it. That said, you could have put some work into the article I linked. I needed not even one minute to find out, that people actually became architect because of Sim City. So, two explanations possible: You haven´t done research or you avoided telling your readers the results of your research.

 

[jschreier]

If you think that a joke about a Stephen Colbert clip needs that much context, I don't know what to tell you.

Posts like that - entertaining, interesting posts that take all of five minutes to publish - free up my time to report and write stories like the one I just linked.

 

[Oersted]

If you think that a joke about a Stephen Colbert clip needs that much context, I don't know what to tell you.

Posts like that - entertaining, interesting posts that take all of five minutes to publish - free up my time to report and write stories like the one I just linked.

One time research to defend joke articles? Really? Jason, do you want to be journalist?

 

[Kinyou]

Does anyone else think that this is a little weird or is it just me?

 

[antitrop]

Does anyone else think that this is a little weird or is it just me?

http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=510494

 

[28 Posts Later]

Does anyone else think that this is a little weird or is it just me?

To be fair at least they openly admit it's a paid-for advertisement.

 

[Kinyou]

http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=510494

Oh, missed that one

To be fair at least they openly admit it's a paid-for advertisement.

I guess, though I wonder if they realize how it makes them look.

 

[SerOnionKnight]

This is a very long thread and after reading the original OP I am just going to assume that all game journalists are on the dole. I think I can safely skip the remaining 9589 posts since I now have very little reason to trust anyone. Ethics is apparently something that does not exist in gaming journalism.

 

[VeryGooster]

Ben Kuchera has gone off the deep end, and he doesn't seem to realize emulators are legal.

 

[Family Fry]

Oh man that Ben Kuchera Forbes thing is getting ugly on twitter.
God damn twitter,

Spoiler

I love it.

EDIT
I didn't realise (Erik Kain) forbes dude wrote this, so the plot kind of thickens.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/erikkai...how-video-game-journalism-went-off-the-rails/

 

[Oersted]

To be fair at least they openly admit it's a paid-for advertisement.

The question is, how much control EA had over this ad.

 

[iammeiam]

Oh man that Ben Kuchera Forbes thing is getting ugly on twitter.
God damn twitter,

Spoiler

I love it.

Having just read through that... holy crap. Nobody is coming out of that one looking good.

 

[VeryGooster]

PA Report mission statement: "Games journalism is broken." *Editor proceeds to be a petty teenager on a social network*

 

[Mononoke]

Employee doesn't see anything wrong with the company he works for.

Shocker.

 

[Joe Shlabotnik]

PA Report mission statement: "Games journalism is broken." *Editor proceeds to be a petty teenager on a social network*

Kind of. The other guy is pretty thick-headed about asking his readers to do research for him though. "I do it all the time!"

 

[Family Fry]

If you look through Erik Kain's twitter feed, guy has been getting it ALL angles for hours now. Horrible to read from every angle.

 

[faceless007]

Oh man that Ben Kuchera Forbes thing is getting ugly on twitter.
God damn twitter,

Spoiler

I love it.

EDIT
I didn't realise (Erik Kain) forbes dude wrote this, so the plot kind of thickens.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/erikkai...how-video-game-journalism-went-off-the-rails/

Yowch. This doesn't look good for anyone. I can definitely see Kuchera's point of view, and his view is actually consistent (if more legalistic than I would like), but behaving like a petulant child in response to the backlash isn't doing him any favors.

But it's Twitter, what do you expect?

 

[JDSN]

I love how Ben says that he is only doing it so he can learn a valuable lesson. The Forbes guy accepts this lesson, then Ben proceeds to change his profile picture to mock him and wishing his career to suffer. Jschreier jumping on the bandwagon too, pretty ironic to see the supposed journalist that considered the Wainwright thing a non-issue suddenly jumping on this. At least he finally got that bitter itch out of his system.