I'm more inclined to disagree with this. If Alex wanted a rational discussion he wouldnt be doing it on twitter.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Games Journalism! Wainwright/Florence/Tomb Raider/Eurogamer/Libel Threats/Doritos
- Thread starter papersleeves
- Start date
- Status
I'm more inclined to disagree with this. If Alex wanted a rational discussion he wouldnt be doing it on twitter.
RockTurtle
Member
i wonder how kotaku feels about being told that they are supporting white cisgendered sexists for trying to have some "journalistic" hindsight and what is an expected standard in other mediums.
some of the tweets i am reading are some kind of mental gymnastics show.
EDIT: Some words.
https://twitter.com/ank_wobl/status/504418984306159616
and some pictures! smile kotaku, you are famous!
acknowledged. i didn't know that.
yeah. i'm not very fond of a lot of the loudest voices on twitter. i'm really left wing and pro social justice ideas but i can't stand the way it's become two political camps faced off against eachother, and a culture has developed where you should just smear anyone who doesn't always toe the party line and where acknowledging any critique is somehow giving in to the enemy. it's so insular and toxic.
That doesn't seem entirely fair. I've somehow managed to get some rational discussions in a lot of random places before I joined GAF. Still do from time to time. Had one even on Youtube before. Matters on how you approach the conversation and not dropping to a level of anger/spite or rising to a level of superiority. Talking as you would in real life or even here on GAF, which is what I do.
--------------------------------------------
On topic. The mental gymnastics of calling Kotaku mysognist and neckbeards is a weird thing to say, especially after years of praise and ridicule on anything social justice. SJW being the common thing to call Kotaku and a site often avoided by the MRA because of these things.
I dunno, I'm not sure how good of a discussion you can have when you are limited to 140 and people and interupt the flow at every turn because you have to scroll through crap. While it is possible... intentionally having a debate on twitter, to me, is not someone looking for an honest and/or clear discussion about the issue. Otherwise, why would you choose twitter to call people out and debate?
lorebringer
Member
The Idle Thumbs podcast has a very good discussion of the recent journalism corruption accusations and associated internet shitfling fight that is very well expressed and well worth a listen for anybody. It's at the start of the most recent episode and it's definitely worth listening to at least the first segment of the podcast.
and the rest because Idle Thumbs is the best podcast ever
UnrealEck
Member
And Burnistoun. But I doubt people have heard of it.
It's definitely possible. You have to filter some out and possibly get to them later unless it's a repeat question or statement. If it's a repeat just redirect to your previous tweet or give out a general statement to clarify if there are far too many messaging you. Twitlonger is also a good tool for any extended thoughts without dragging it out at 140 characters at a time. That's how I operate. (though sometimes I do forget about Twitlonger and just go on a really long stream of thought because of my ADHD).
Of course there are better alternatives to Twitter when having discussions, I've just learned how to utilize what I have.
Then these guys need to actually look at proof and how "SJW" that everyone is talking about are even using so much Mental Gymnastics as to blame KOTAKU of supporting "white cis male scum" freaking kotaku of all places.
Eh, I just think it is a lazy way to make a point and I do think it protects you, to a degree, in actually getting your opinion dissected. I dont think people subconsciously accidentally pick the forms of communication that they choose. I think they pick twitter for a reason, and that reason is debates are normally a hell of a lot more superficial. Can you have a decent conversation? Sure. Should you be having a debate on ethical policies on twitter? I'm going to side with no.
It's strange how there is an eagerness among the press to set up those with a dissenting opinion as part of an ignorant mob that abuses women on the internet. It's almost as if these vile people are needed to justify members of the press making contributions to KS and Patreon.
It's better to try to make a policy that addresses a real issue than to sit on your hands and make no policy as you argue online patting your former development colleagues on the back while serving as a member of the gaming press. It's extremely strange that this is what normal is in the gaming press.
What Polygon and to a larger extent what Kotaku is doing is considered bad? The gaming press has lost the plot a long time ago. They were brought up and nurtured in a professional community with no ethics policies, incentivized to get cozy with PR and developers.
Many members of the press want to feel like they're in "the band." They don't want to be "uncool."
It's better to try to make a policy that addresses a real issue than to sit on your hands and make no policy as you argue online patting your former development colleagues on the back while serving as a member of the gaming press. It's extremely strange that this is what normal is in the gaming press.
What Polygon and to a larger extent what Kotaku is doing is considered bad? The gaming press has lost the plot a long time ago. They were brought up and nurtured in a professional community with no ethics policies, incentivized to get cozy with PR and developers.
Many members of the press want to feel like they're in "the band." They don't want to be "uncool."
I agree with that last part. The talk of ethics and journalism over Twitter right now is spiraling all over the place that it has made it hard for some to even understand what is even going on or even form an opinion. This stuff really needs to be discussed in a more private area to get the proper communication across, maybe even write more articles, I dunno. I haven't been able to keep up with much of it myself. I thought I did, I thought I was, then suddenly I just don't even know. Twitter can be both good and bad like this. Good, it helped to bring everything that was happening in Ferguson to the forefront of things and piercing through all of Twitter so small voices could be heard. The bad, well, what's happening now with spiraling confusion piercing all over Twitter.
Ironically(maybe?) it shows how pervasive even vocally advocating for something can remove all possible objectivity. If people don't think investments into personalities or companies doesn't result in aggressive behavior and near conflicting behavior patterns look no further then twitter. When you get emotionally and financially invested in something the ugly can come out, where it is clearly coming out, essentially calling people every name they can think of that sticks because they disagree. Or "grow the fuck up" as an argument. I mean really, the "leaders" in this industry are entertaining for all the wrong reasons.
That's the sad thing.
They're bloggers, not journalists.
What does this say about the ethics of bloggers? It's easier to lower your ethical standards when it's convenient. I'm happy Kotaku is at least addressing this stuff.
SolidSnakex
Member
The last one is amazing.
RockTurtle
Member
there's gotta be a word for all this, but i'm having trouble coming up with one
When you try to upset the status quo, you naturally get push back. The fact that these people think Kotaku and Polygon being more transparent deserves passive aggressive, salty as fuck Twitter ramblings is pathetic.
It's better to imagine everyone advocating more transparency in game journalism as racist, misogynistic trolls. It makes it much easier to ignore concerns and continuing as they did before.
Lowlander2
Banned
Are they considering what Polygon has done to be bad?
I'm sure I'm never visiting Kotaku again! As game devs are lining up to support Anita and disassociate themselves from MRA trolls, you guys let them dictate policy. Patreon is the problem, not banner ads paid for by the products you cover? Fucking LOL.
RockTurtle
Member
i mean how do you even respond to this
If you agree with the first one, like I do:
Is it hard to see why people like me think this makes gaming journalism worse?
SolidSnakex
Member
It's just amazing that Kotaku of all sites is being accused of catering to that group. As I said before, they'd probably be the last gaming site I could think of that would do something like that.
Yep they're even complaining about how Polygon has changed their stance.
one of Kuchera's tweets just look down and see the "disfatication" from them all because of the change.
Yes, there are some people who are mad that both Kotaku and Polygon listened to the bigots.
Even within Polygon there was a backlash.
SolidSnakex
Member
But you're still allowed to give money if you're at Polygon, right? The only thing that they changed is that they added something to their profiles where you can include who you may be giving money to. I don't see how that's a bad thing.
The argument is that making a change in reaction to "harassers" and "goons" is bad.
Kotaku says they are reacting to legitimate criticisms of their previous ethics policy.
The argument is that singling out Patreon is bad.
Polygon statement on their change.
You're right. There are multiple arguments. Some think that singling out Patreon is bad, because they are the smallest, often-times minority, and are in the most need of funding.
I would say all crowd-funding should be off-limits for journalists. I give Kotaku credit for taking a step in the right direction while other outlets are very laissez faire about journalists funding and backing game creators.
I think people should make their own decisions wrt things like kickstarter and patreon and whether they think it crosses a line for them, particularly if they have to cover that project in an "objective" fashion, but to ban it outright seems unnecessary and even counter-productive when you realize that for some interesting and newsworthy projects one may only be able to get a copy (think hardware as well as software) through being a backer. With things like early access and other sorts of non-conventional release schedules and procedures, it seems to me that hard bans on "contributory" payments will quickly become anachronistic and unable to keep up with the reality of gamers and fans getting copies before the press itself. IMO the real solution is full disclosure, so that readers / viewers are allowed to be fully informed of the potential biases and conflicts that they may or may not care about while evaluating related content.
http://www.collegebizjournalism.org/node/5
http://www.americanbusinessmedia.com/images/abm/pdfs/committees/EdEthics.pdf
I'd suggest reading up on this stuff.
I'd say making sure your writers do not give invest money in projects is kind of important.
As long as they are following these rules, advertisements are not an issue.
So condescending regarding a definition of "investing" that has little relation to its common usage.
That's bullcrap. Outside of gaming, you would not be able to fund a project from happening in the industry you cover, no matter how small. Funding projects(that wouldnt exist without said funding) is a form of investment. Beyond that it's a hell of a lot closer to investment then it is pre-ordering, now THAT is deceiving. It's the equivalent of donating to your political party, at the very minimum.
RockTurtle
Member
looking at it from a big 3rd party aspect.
"hold on, these gaming websites get a cookie-points telling their readers, our buyers, how much they avoid us greasing their wallets for a few more point on the grading scale, yet they do it for free for their indie game developer twitter friends that they are paying the rent of?"
i'm sure gawker is very interested in the situation.
maybe that's a bigger motive?
"hold on, these gaming websites get a cookie-points telling their readers, our buyers, how much they avoid us greasing their wallets for a few more point on the grading scale, yet they do it for free for their indie game developer twitter friends that they are paying the rent of?"
i'm sure gawker is very interested in the situation.
maybe that's a bigger motive?
I can "invest" in a kickstarter to get access to the game to write about it, or I get a free preview copy of the game from the developers. I don't understand why people think the second scenario is the one more likely to have honest impressions of the game.
If you think that Kotaku does not support inclusivity or cover progressive issues in gaming, then clearly you never visited Kotaku in the first place, so your lack of readership won't really do much, sorry to say.
Uh, what? I can't parse this sentence
Getting free games? Fine.
Getting free booze at events? Fine.
Being socially chummy with developers? Fine.
Giving a dev whose games you like $10 a month? GET OUT THE PITCHFORKS, YOU'RE TOO CLOSE TO THE DEVELOPERS.
RedNumberFive
Banned
Joke post? I seriously can't tell anymore.
If only certain companies gave review copies, then it would be an issue, but since everyone does it I'm not sure how they would favor one over the other? And if another company doesn't give them review copy because of previous negative coverage I would hope they would be screaming it from the mountain tops.
The ethical guidelines I would think should be clear for product reviews, you do not take work materials home for personal use(review copies). If they dont follow this, you probably should be careful with them.
Maybe you should read this thread if you dont think people have serious issues with a lot of this.
Who said any of the above things are fine?
Actually, scratch that, the free games thing is really a poor argument. If it's your job to write about games, then any (reasonable) game purchases you would need to make to perform your job would be business expenses, and would be paid for by your employer. Maybe having to pay for every game might make a small dent in Kotaku's bottom line, but it was have absolutely zero impact on the writers themselves. I guess for independent writers it would be more of an issue, and there are a number of reasons why they might be susceptible to being swayed by game publishers.
The rest is absolutely problematic, and are a large part of why this thread exists. But you going "we shouldn't care about this one thing, because there are other issues" is a total red herring.
With kickstarter, this is changing. You will find tech journalists funding tech hardware kickstarters, entertainment commentators funding entertainment projects, etc. This in particular is becoming an unsustainable idea to banish wholesale.
A policy that prohibited writers from writing about games or hardware they purchased themselves would be consistent, at least, and would be better than singling out Patreon. I would be okay with this.
Lowlander2
Banned
See, this is a good point, funnily enough the only good point the dissenters have. I maintain that developers and journalists are, on the whole, too close as it is, and removing or disclosing Patreon connections and their connotations is only one step to solving the problem. In fact, I hope Jason and/or Stephen are reading, because I want to communicate that although it's a very good start to finally addressing this, there is definitely more work to be done.
But I also want to congratulate and thank the two, because they seem among the few journalists who have picked up a media law textbook in their lives and know what financial support entails when it comes to story coverage. Most every other chucklefuck, and I know this is harsh but this is so goddamn true, comes from an indie developer background, so they feel like they're being slighted in light of this, when the fact is that a press member should only get as involved as is necessary for them to do their job, and a continuous stream of donations, however small, is not a part of that. This is taught from your first lecture and is only echoed from there.
If you say so, but per your point they are examples of industries' enthusiast press in which finding of kickstarters will occur.
Hey, I've been arguing they need to include kickstarter(and other similar things, anything that funds a project that would not exist without your funding) this the whole time.
I dont think it is unsustainable, I dont think it is as pervasive as imagined. I also dont think(at least in the tech field) it is as pervasive with reporting journalists as it is with simple bloggers. On the other hand, I do agree to a point, it does seem that there is a growing segment of people who dont care about conflict of interests as long as their interests are served, more specifically on the internet is it more pervasive, I thinking it is because it is much easier to find like minded people.
I clarified the scope of people who I think need to follow this
And I do think that it is followed by most who claim it to be journalists and reporters(not simply op-ed writers). Obviously there are exceptions to the rule, but I think it holds true. I dont care if a website not doing extensive coverage on something gives to these things.
- Status