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

Status
Not open for further replies.
You guys think Joe Buck has a problem announcing Free Tacos for America? Fuck no.

Edit: Wrong thread. Oh, maybe not.
That's not remotely the same thing as anything that is being discussed here. Everybody in the audience is clear when he is giving "a word from our sponsors." And a message from sponsors is a far cry from the type of PR driven schmoozing, swag and relationships discussed here. There is also no ambiguity or even any possibility of conflict of interest since he covers sports not tacos. Nor frankly is anyone listening to Joe Buck to get his opinion on anything. He is there to give you a play by play. Nothing in that scenario matches up at all.
 
I think the reason the game press is so hesitant to report on it, is that you guys are much to chummy with each other and much to chummy with the game industry. Many of you guys hang out, go out, and are friends with each other. I think that the games press often want to have it both ways that you're journalists and that "hey man, it's just video games".


I think that not reporting on this story isn't OMG!!! worthy. I get more annoyed when I hear game writers say that they are in the video game industry, when they are not.
Nope. It wasn't because we were worried about upsetting fellow reporters. It came down entirely to what our decision to do any story that requires a decent amount or reporting entails: a sense of how many people will find the story interesting vs. the amount of time and effort it will take to report it well vs. other demands on our time. I can't speak for others, but that's how it came down at Kotaku.

Folks here are clearly extremely interested in the topic. If Kotaku was the NeoGAF Times and I was EiC of it, I'd be negligent in my job if I didn't have us cover this whole affair. But stories about the media, while interesting to those who care about the media, are often rather small-fry and just not that compelling to a lot of people. I fully admit that the interest in the story here is intense, so I'm sure it seems strange that we didn't cover it. But given the aforementioned formulation and my sense that there wasn't a whole lot of new revelations to be gleaned from reporting the story, we held off. As I've said before, the nice thing about journalism is you can look into something just about any given day and do something new at any moment. So, given the passion about this topic I'm seeing here, I'm reconsidering whether maybe we should revisit the old "problems with games journalism" story. If we do, it seems to me that it should include the seemingly unshakable disdain and suspicion that some gamers, including some folks here, have for and of the gaming press.

I've appreciated the back and forth and glad some of my zingers hit the mark! I gotta go, though.
 
Hey Stephen, don't think that the number of replies in a thread on neogaf always equals how much people care about it. In the case you brought up, it's the difference between a story which was happening as the thread was created and a discussion about a well-researched piece of journalism which already had a beginning and ending. That said, you mentioned you've had a drink, so this probably doesn't actually bother you and hopefully no one will take your words too literally :)
 
Nope. It wasn't because we were worried about upsetting fellow reporters. It came down entirely to what our decision to do any story that requires a decent amount or reporting entails: a sense of how many people will find the story interesting vs. the amount of time and effort it will take to report it well vs. other demands on our time. I can't speak for others, but that's how it came down at Kotaku.

Folks here are clearly extremely interested in the topic. If Kotaku was the NeoGAF Times and I was EiC of it, I'd be negligent in my job if I didn't have us cover this whole affair. But stories about the media, while interesting to those who care about the media, are often rather small-fry and just not that compelling to a lot of people. I fully admit that the interest in the story here is intense, so I'm sure it seems strange that we didn't cover it. But given the aforementioned formulation and my sense that there wasn't a whole lot of new revelations to be gleaned from reporting the story, we held off. As I've said before, the nice thing about journalism is you can look into something just about any given day and do something new at any moment. So, given the passion about this topic I'm seeing here, I'm reconsidering whether maybe we should revisit the old "problems with games journalism" story. If we do, it seems to me that it should include the seemingly unshakable disdain and suspicion that some gamers, including some folks here, have for and of the gaming press.

I've appreciated the back and forth and glad some of my zingers hit the mark! I gotta go, though.
Do you think the story would have been covered more extensively if it had been a publisher that had sued a journalist rather than another journalist?

I seriously have a hard time understanding why this story isn't even mentioned on many sites.
 
Um, because I just had a drink? I don't know. It's almost as weird as people having amnesia about the good journalism done on Kotaku just so they can selectively bash us. People can be unpredictable and occasionally inconsistent.

Why isn't the thread about our Silicon Knights story this long, NeoGAF? Sweeping that one under the rug?

Imagine a world where good games journalism doesn't generate really long threads on NeoGAF, but threads about games journalism and the alleged lack of good games journalism does. I guess everyone, not just Nick Denton, loves the whiff of scandal.
Because systemic corruption that pervades the entire medium is perhaps more generally interesting and provokes more conversation than an expose on a single developer that hasn't done anything notable in five years?
I liked that article, but what is there to say about it?

Which is hilariously ironic since we have about 50 pages worth of "we aren't covering it because no one's interested."
 
I don't think anyone should be bashing Kotaku or Stephen about this, if they don't want to write about it that's their choice.

I think the complaints belong to Schreier personally for mocking Florence's position on Twitter then claiming he isn't interested.
 
It seems like a lot of journalists do feel like this is an important story and issue worth writing about. Rab Florence and John Walker are obviously at the top of that list, but Ben Kuchera, Patrick Klepek, Leigh Alexander and Jim Sterling all wrote pieces that mentioned it and took it seriously enough when putting their thoughts down. There are probably others I've missed.

While a place like NeoGAF, due to it being a forum, is full of all sorts of people who post everything along the gamut of spiteful to insightful and is therefore easy to make fun of, I think it is a little disrespectful to the journalists who wrote quite a lot about this story to call it "tired nonsense," a non-story that isn't important or even worth asking a reporter to look at, and the implication that writing about it wouldn't be "good games journalism."

It's this divide among game journalists that I find most interesting. Obviously there will always be differences of opinion and interest about what stories to cover or not cover. I think just not covering a story is understandable, but this specific story has seemed to bring the claws out(or at least the mocking), if Twitter and some of these comments are anything to go by. Just taking journalists and PR people into account, not gamers/the audience/NeoGAF.
 
If we do, it seems to me that it should include the seemingly unshakable disdain and suspicion that some gamers, including some folks here, have for and of the gaming press.
Yes, our unshakable disdain and suspicion. Jesus.

Nevermind, please don't cover this story. You clearly are incapable of understanding the concerns and interests that are being expressed in this thread.
 
I don't think anyone should be bashing Kotaku or Stephen about this, if they don't want to write about it that's their choice.

I think the complaints belong to Schreier personally for mocking Florence's position on Twitter then claiming he isn't interested.
I never mocked Florence's position on Twitter. Please don't put words in my mouth or levy accusations based on your misinterpretations of things I've said.

In fact, I agree with much of what Florence wrote. (as I've said more than a few times in this thread.)
 
This is the front page of Kotaku right now. Lol. I'm sure this is an issue that many many gamers care deeply about.

Maybe this is what you consider being a watchdog? Way to keep MS in line!

No time to even print a reader response about this mess - but hey we have time to clarify the relationship between 2 stoners popular when most of the Kotaku audience were zygotes!
The premise hurts my brain. Cheech and Chong were both stoners. It takes that level of dedication to smoke a giant joint recovered from dog shit.
 
Nope. It wasn't because we were worried about upsetting fellow reporters. It came down entirely to what our decision to do any story that requires a decent amount or reporting entails: a sense of how many people will find the story interesting vs. the amount of time and effort it will take to report it well vs. other demands on our time. I can't speak for others, but that's how it came down at Kotaku.

Folks here are clearly extremely interested in the topic. If Kotaku was the NeoGAF Times and I was EiC of it, I'd be negligent in my job if I didn't have us cover this whole affair. But stories about the media, while interesting to those who care about the media, are often rather small-fry and just not that compelling to a lot of people. I fully admit that the interest in the story here is intense, so I'm sure it seems strange that we didn't cover it. But given the aforementioned formulation and my sense that there wasn't a whole lot of new revelations to be gleaned from reporting the story, we held off. As I've said before, the nice thing about journalism is you can look into something just about any given day and do something new at any moment. So, given the passion about this topic I'm seeing here, I'm reconsidering whether maybe we should revisit the old "problems with games journalism" story. If we do, it seems to me that it should include the seemingly unshakable disdain and suspicion that some gamers, including some folks here, have for and of the gaming press.

I've appreciated the back and forth and glad some of my zingers hit the mark! I gotta go, though.
The same doubletalk we got from Jason. Yeah there's interest in the story.....but we just couldn't. Ethics/trustworthiness in the media matters to people....but there wouldn't be any 'new revelations' (whatever that means). Flimsy.
 
jschreier said:
I've made it quite clear that I take these issues seriously, and I think I've addressed everyone in this thread with a great deal of respect.
The problem with jschreier and many other enthusiast writers posting in this thread is that while they've *said* in this thread they take these issues seriously (what else would they say here - to say anything else would be suicide) their actions say something very different.

Outside of Neogaf jschreier has only minimized and mocked these sorts of issues, been completely dismissive of them, and engaged in a circle-wagon-jerk with people who didn't even read the original piece and don't even know what the discussion is about.

If you compare the reaction of jschreier to say John Walker I think it's fairly obvious which one takes this seriously and which one is just saying so in a thread on Neogaf.

I don't really see the point of repeatedly claiming to the point of tedium that an issue is near and dear to your heart when in the age of the internet we can all see you in other places laughing about it dismissively.
 
Do you think the story would have been covered more extensively if it had been a publisher that had sued a journalist rather than another journalist?

I seriously have a hard time understanding why this story isn't even mentioned on many sites.
It's not that hard to understand, really. One site was threatened with libel. The person who threatened him and engaged in a lot of questionable practices also worked for a number of the major websites and the story makes those websites look bad.
 
Nope. It wasn't because we were worried about upsetting fellow reporters. It came down entirely to what our decision to do any story that requires a decent amount or reporting entails: a sense of how many people will find the story interesting vs. the amount of time and effort it will take to report it well vs. other demands on our time. I can't speak for others, but that's how it came down at Kotaku.

Folks here are clearly extremely interested in the topic. If Kotaku was the NeoGAF Times and I was EiC of it, I'd be negligent in my job if I didn't have us cover this whole affair. But stories about the media, while interesting to those who care about the media, are often rather small-fry and just not that compelling to a lot of people. I fully admit that the interest in the story here is intense, so I'm sure it seems strange that we didn't cover it. But given the aforementioned formulation and my sense that there wasn't a whole lot of new revelations to be gleaned from reporting the story, we held off. As I've said before, the nice thing about journalism is you can look into something just about any given day and do something new at any moment. So, given the passion about this topic I'm seeing here, I'm reconsidering whether maybe we should revisit the old "problems with games journalism" story. If we do, it seems to me that it should include the seemingly unshakable disdain and suspicion that some gamers, including some folks here, have for and of the gaming press.

I've appreciated the back and forth and glad some of my zingers hit the mark! I gotta go, though.
I believe that journalists should have that same suspicion for other journalists. There should be an ethical standard for all journalists who work for major publications should agree to. That's a cooperation that would help prevent the awkward relationships that do exist between PR and press.

It just seems like writers are interested in this topic, but don't want to go out on a limb to write about it on their publication where repercussions are real and audiences are larger.

If you want to take a more nuanced approach to covering this story and that is a large reason for not covering it, why are there so many Kotaku writers taking swipes or making jokes about having publicists ghost-write their articles?
 
It was a good article.

Now go after a target that isn't harmless.

Say, EA or Activision. Must be a lot of juicy stuff about the big guys out there........
I do remember when Kotaku completely leaked a whole bunch of stuff about Modern Warfare 3, like all the levels, maps and the plot (lol). Activision must have been pretty pissed.
 
Kurt Kalata of Hardcoregaming101.net is also one of the best because he just talks about games, pure and simple. The importance of a series, or interviews with translators and voice cast directors. People who were/are important to games you might not know about due to the kind of dialogue you find in aggregate game blogs which are usually bloated with cosplay/ top 10 lists/unboxing fluff pieces.
Kurt puts together some really great features. Definitely worth reading.
 
I believe that journalists should have that same suspicion for other journalists. There should be an ethical standard for all journalists who work for major publications should agree to. That's a cooperation that would help prevent the awkward relationships that do exist between PR and press.
Ethics agreements and other 'loose' items like that are too easy to skirt or outright ignore. Malcolm Gladwell was a stealth shill for the tobacco industry for years in the print media and he still makes big bucks giving presentations to corporations. The only way to hold media hacks accountable is to shame them with hard evidence of their own conflicts of interest and shady dealings.
 
Nope. It wasn't because we were worried about upsetting fellow reporters. It came down entirely to what our decision to do any story that requires a decent amount or reporting entails: a sense of how many people will find the story interesting vs. the amount of time and effort it will take to report it well vs. other demands on our time. I can't speak for others, but that's how it came down at Kotaku.
I'd say you were pandering if you were telling the truth. That seems doubtful, though, as no one is clamoring for X-Men: Destiny coverage by any metric.
Folks here are clearly extremely interested in the topic. If Kotaku was the NeoGAF Times and I was EiC of it, I'd be negligent in my job if I didn't have us cover this whole affair. But stories about the media, while interesting to those who care about the media, are often rather small-fry and just not that compelling to a lot of people. I fully admit that the interest in the story here is intense, so I'm sure it seems strange that we didn't cover it. But given the aforementioned formulation and my sense that there wasn't a whole lot of new revelations to be gleaned from reporting the story, we held off. As I've said before, the nice thing about journalism is you can look into something just about any given day and do something new at any moment. So, given the passion about this topic I'm seeing here, I'm reconsidering whether maybe we should revisit the old "provlems with games journalism" story. If we do, it seems to me that it should include the seemingly unshakable disdain and suspicion that some gamers, including some folks here, have for and of the gaming press.
Ha. I don't see any of this "unshakable disdain and suspicion" in regards to plenty of games websites.
 
The implication or explicit statement that we didn't cover the latest games journalism scandal because it would have cost us money is bullshit. That's the strange turn this has taken. We did not refrain from reporting this story last week because we were afraid of upsetting PR people.

Smaller outlets might be more dependent on access than we are, but that's not a factor here. I'm not sure what I can say or do to convince anyone of that If the only way to convince anyone that we're not afraid of PR is to write about this exact story, then there's no point of convincing said person. I'm sure it would be news to PR people across the gaming industry that we're afraid of them.

Thank you to those in this thread who said some kind words about Andrew McMillen's Silicon Knights story. He spent over a year chasing down a lot of that.
So you went against the almighty PR peoples from Silicon Knights. That must of took courage to do so when you think just how hated, small, beaten and irrelevant they pretty much are nowadays. How many employees do they have again? Let's not forget how this article makes Activision appearing as good guys all at the same time, making sure no one is rubbing their PR along the way.

You guys are so brave. I've heard that if you dig enough you can find lots of shit from Activision, EA and Ubisoft. That shouldn't be a problem for the awesome white knights that you are.
 
The problem with jschreier and many other enthusiast writers posting in this thread is that while they've *said* in this thread they take these issues seriously (what else would they say here - to say anything else would be suicide) their actions say something very different.

Outside of Neogaf jschreier has only minimized and mocked these sorts of issues, been completely dismissive of them, and engaged in a circle-wagon-jerk with people who didn't even read the original piece and don't even know what the discussion is about.

If you compare the reaction of jschreier to say John Walker I think it's fairly obvious which one takes this seriously and which one is just saying so in a thread on Neogaf.

I don't really see the point of repeatedly claiming to the point of tedium that an issue is near and dear to your heart when in the age of the internet we can all see you in other places laughing about it dismissively.
Concluding that I don't take something seriously because I don't talk about it on Twitter is frankly quite silly. I don't often talk about game journalism issues on Twitter, nor do I often use Twitter to have serious conversations or debates. And "circle-wagon-jerk with people who didn't even read the original piece and don't even know what the discussion is about"? What are you even talking about?

And if you really must point out my Twitter, why not link to where I told John Walker that I really enjoyed his piece about all of this? https://twitter.com/jasonschreier/status/261437491029094400

Or where I expressed shock/surprise at the revelation that Wainwright had written about the company she consulted for? https://twitter.com/jasonschreier/status/261461976071426048

Regardless, using my Twitter feed as a metric for my feelings on a serious issue is misguided and silly. Twitter is not a good platform for this sort of thing.
 
I don't think I said anything like that latter line. What I said was that I made a joke because the concept seemed distant and absurd to me. As I've clarified in this thread, I think it's a topic worth discussing and thinking about and re-examining constantly. I would be neglecting my job if I didn't take the time to think about this sort of thing.

Anyways, heading off for at least the next hour or two, but thanks again to everyone who took the time to chat.
.
Very well put. It's unfortunate that so many of you are viewing things with such cold cynicism. One solution might be for people like me to be as transparent as possible and be willing to engage in conversation on these issues, which is one of the reasons I'm posting in this thread. But it's tough to talk about that when the conversation keeps swinging back to the fact that Kotaku is doing something evil because we took 10 minutes to show people what's in the Halo collectors edition but we're not interested in putting a great deal of time into a story about media issues.

Regardless, to address what you said: I had no idea that people were reacting so extremely to those silly tweets until I saw this thread hours after I made them. I can see your perspective to be sure. But the major reason I'm joking about the idea of someone advertising to win a PS3 is because it's so absurd in the first place that anybody would think it's OK to advertise to win a PS3. I am completely detached both mentally and geographically from these incidents, as are many other reporters I've spoken to.

On that same level, the idea that PR people are pulling the strings behind every outlet is also absurd and so at odds with everything I do every day that joking about it is a natural response. But you're right: I can see exactly why it feels like a slap in the face to see me joking about something like that if you actually believe that me and my colleagues are corrupt or shady or unethical or whatever else. I get that.
 
I'd say you were pandering if you were telling the truth. That seems doubtful, though, as no one is clamoring for X-Men: Destiny coverage by any metric.
Ha. I don't see any of this "unshakable disdain and suspicion" in regards to plenty of games websites.
What irritated me about this comment was that he can't seem to possibly fathom that some people might just be concerned with these issues without them having some irrational all consuming hatred.

I liked Kotaku's piece on Silcon Knights. I also think their unboxing shit is fucking absurd. I can and do hold both those opinions simultaneously. Totilo wants to make this out to be some kind of irrational witch hunt and it's annoying.
 
The fact is that the SK story is well above average for modern day game journalism, and I think some of you guys at this point are being overly antagonistic. If there were a site constantly doing exposees on Activision and EA, and Kotaku was mysteriously silent, that would be one thing. But maybe getting inside dirt on super wealthy corporations isn't quite as easy as some seem to think?

That said, I don't think there's anything wrong with putting pressure on really popular game blogs to be as open about their relationships with publishers as they can.
 
Seeing as we have a couple of Kotaku folks in here, does Kotaku have an ethics statement available to read anywhere (like Polygon does)?

I mean, would Kotaku writers be free to consult on games for developers/publishers and then report on those games at Kotaku? Is it fine for Kotaku writers to go out for meals, hit the town etc with PR people at the PR people's expense? Is there any monetary value limit to what you'll willingly receive from people in the games industry? What's your stance on review events? Do you think all the freebies, wining and dining, and closer relationships with PR people could affect a writer's impressions of the associated products, perhaps even on a subconscious level?
 
You understand that there's a wide range of possibilities between squeaky clean and "pulling the strings," right? The idea of PR people pulling the strings seems absurd to me, but that doesn't mean I should never stop thinking about these issues and constantly scrutinizing how I do my job.
It's a slap in the face because the major concern people have in this thread isn't conscious "pulling of strings." And you know this: http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showpost.php?p=43665898&postcount=4095. For you to shift the blame to NeoGAF's supposed gullibility is shameful.
 
Also, I love how every journalist has dismissed this story because the facts are too unclear or because it's "inside baseball" or just industry drama. THAT COMPLETELY MISSES THE POINT.

When Florence wrote his piece, it wasn't about Geoff's dumb picture, he merely used that as a starting point for a larger discussion.

This story isn't about Florence/Wainright, that's merely the starting point for a larger discussion.

The problem is that journalists don't want to have that larger discussion because it's painful. No one wants to talk about how to alleviate climate change, for example, because every solution is painful. People have to make sacrifices. Give up things that have made them very comfortable. So instead of arguing about the solution, opponents stall the discussion at whether climate change is even occurring, disregarding all of the evidence, because if people have to fight about Step 1 (admitting the problem) then they'll never get to Step 2 (fixing the problem).

THIS IS WHAT TOTILO ET AL ARE DOING. We have 100 pages of arguing that this should be a story (when all facts show that it is!), not 100 pages of what Jason and Stephen are going to do to fix it.

Totilo is telling us that there is no climate change (this isn't a story, no one's interested, there is no pervasive symbiosis, we do lots of other 'real' stories) while the jungles burn and the ice caps melt around him. He'll grow gills and recycle his own urine long before he ever admits anything is wrong, because admitting that something's wrong is the easy part. Fixing it is the awful, painful process.

And why should he even bother to try? Just like global warming, no one person can fix the problem--if Totilo doesn't unbox that X-Box, someone else will.
 

TheSeks

Blinded by the luminous glory that is David Bowie's physical manifestation.
Why isn't the thread about our Silicon Knights story this long, NeoGAF? Sweeping that one under the rug?
When has Silicon Knights been relevant this generation?

Robert Wainwright has been slaying your favorite for a whole week now.

But seriously: It's a decent article but:

worldrevolution said:
It took a year..to snoop out.. Silicon Knights?
.

I guess this just further shows that the PR people pulling the strings make it hard to actually do "journalism"/interviews and off the cuff stuff.

If interviews were more like Shoe's interview of Peter Moore after the 360 launch, I'd actually have respect for games journalism.

Note: That doesn't mean games journalism needs to be bitter old fucks like me, but you should be calling out bullshit and getting the heads to squirm a little.
 

McBradders

NeoGAF: my new HOME
Also, I love how every journalist has dismissed this story because the facts are too unclear or because it's "inside baseball" or just industry drama. THAT COMPLETELY MISSES THE POINT.

When Florence wrote his piece, it wasn't about Geoff's dumb picture, he merely used that as a starting point for a larger discussion.

This story isn't about Florence/Wainright, that's merely the starting point for a larger discussion.

The problem is that journalists don't want to have that larger discussion because it's painful. No one wants to talk about how to alleviate climate change, for example, because every solution is painful. People have to make sacrifices. Give up things that have made them very comfortable. So instead of arguing about the solution, opponents stall the discussion at whether climate change is even occurring, disregarding all of the evidence, because if people have to fight about Step 1 (admitting the problem) then they'll never get to Step 2 (fixing the problem).

THIS IS WHAT TOTILO ET AL ARE DOING. We have 100 pages of arguing that this should be a story (when all facts show that it is!), not 100 pages of what Jason and Stephen are going to do to fix it.

Totilo is telling us that there is no climate change (this isn't a story, no one's interested, there is no pervasive symbiosis, we do lots of other 'real' stories) while the jungles burn and the ice caps melt around him. He'll grow gills and recycle his own urine long before he ever admits anything is wrong, because admitting that something's wrong is the easy part. Fixing it is the awful, painful process.

And why should he even bother to try? Just like global warming, no one person can fix the problem--if Totilo doesn't unbox that X-Box, someone else will.
Dwaynejohnsonclapping.gif
 
He asked why the other thread isn't as long as this one.
The article is terrific, but what is there to say about it really? It confirms a lot of rumors and suspicions about Dyack and puts a lot of things to rest. There isn't much there to speculate on or guess at. It's already there in the article.

This thread is so long because Detective GAF is having to do the work that Andrew McMillen did in that case. Create good coverage of the topic and a thread on GAF won't have to do it for you.

Why would anyone expect a thorough article about the crazy and eccentric behavior of a man many already suspected to be a crazy eccentric to create a lot of discussion on GAF? What's left to say?

His complaint makes no sense, but it's good if more people are getting directed to the article. It's a good read.
 
jasonschreier said:
Regardless, using my Twitter feed as a metric for my feelings on a serious issue is misguided and silly. Twitter is not a good platform for this sort of thing.
You used Twitter to share your feelings on a serious issue. Nobody forced you do that. And if we're supposed to just ignore your Tweets because Twitter is a poor forum for communication then why are you Tweeting about it in the first place?

I'm sorry but you can't post opinions on Twitter then complain when people get your opinions from Twitter.

You on Twitter:

There is nothing more boring than video game journalism drama. Instead, read some actual journalism about games
So here you are on Neogaf saying this topic is very serious, and on Twitter you are saying that it is LITERALLY THE MOST BORING TOPIC IN EXISTENCE. The topic that interests you absolutely the least out of every topic in the universe.

So forgive me when I find it hard to believe your Neogaf posts about constantly ruminating on this subject.

More you:

Can all the games journalists go back to writing about games instead of other journalists now please?

26 Oct Jason Schreier ‏@jasonschreier
@TriggerRedd it's just the worst isn't it?
So let's review. This is all conspiracy theories, journalists writing about journalists is "the worst" (including Rab's piece since that is clearly journalists writing about journalists), there is nothing more boring that video game journalism drama...but these are issues you constantly struggle with and are super duper important to you - and in no way did you dismiss Rab's piece even though it is both the worst and on the least interesting subject in the universe.
 
If interviews were more like Shoe's interview of Peter Moore after the 360 launch, I'd actually have respect for games journalism.

Note: That doesn't mean games journalism needs to be bitter old fucks like me, but you should be calling out bullshit and getting the heads to squirm a little.
DAMN. Shoe really sticks it to him in that (and not just for the sake of it; those were serious issues he asked about) Good read.
 
You used Twitter to share your feelings on a serious issue. Nobody forced you do that. And if we're supposed to just ignore your Tweets because Twitter is a poor forum for communication then why are you Tweeting about it in the first place?
No I certainly did not. I used Twitter to joke around, as many people use Twitter. Nowhere on my Twitter feed have I shared my feelings on this issue.

You shouldn't ignore my tweets. Judge them however you'd like. But don't jump to the conclusion that Twitter is the sole barometer for my opinions or feelings on any issue. That's insane.

So here you are on Neogaf saying this topic is very serious, and on Twitter you are saying that it is LITERALLY THE MOST BORING TOPIC IN EXISTENCE. The topic that interests you absolutely the least out of every topic in the universe.

So forgive me when I find it hard to believe your Neogaf posts about constantly ruminating on this subject.
As I've said multiple times already in this thread, I find the drama to be very boring. The larger conversation here, the conversation about ethics and limits and the relationship between press and PR, is what I find interesting. Do you see what I'm saying? The conversation about reporters advertising for a PS3 is boring because it's black-and-white. No, they should not be doing that. End of story. The other things we've discussed here are far more interesting and far more important to me.
 
Smaller outlets might be more dependent on access than we are, but that's not a factor here.
Everything else aside, isn't this newsworthy in and of itself? The fact that you take this "hierarchy of access" in stride as a matter of course speaks volumes. You're well aware that PR does in fact strong arm the "little guys." And, of course, the "smaller outlets" make up the bulk of the gaming press (many of whom appear on Metacritic BTW). You've as much as acknowledged that this does in fact happen, and that you're aware that it happens, just not to you. Therefore, it's not news.

Do I have that right? You know that PR abuses their power with smaller outlets, but since it doesn't directly affect you, it must not be important. Is that right?

And that's only one small way in which PR has made significant inroads into the games journalism business. Can you at least acknowledge how f-ed up that looks? And how f-ed up it is that you just brush it off as something that doesn't concern you? Or your readers? How could you possibly not see the seeds of a bigger story in that?

You all have given plenty of coverage to things like Metacritic and review scores. How is this aspect of the politics behind games writing not just as important or relevant?

And if you did report on something like that, wouldn't the next logical follow-up be to then make a clear statement about your ethics with respect to PR? How does that not seem reasonable? Necessary, even?
 
"I find it more interesting to write about games. Journalists aren't the story!"

"There is nothing more boring than video game journalism drama. Instead, read some actual journalism about games"

What hilarious jokes.
 
I feel like we're going in circles here. Journalists claim there is no story, the idea that PR corrupts journalists is absurd, move on. We all claim that we are suspicious of the fact that no one is reporting on this, we find it hard to believe that there is no story here, and we are asking for someone - anyone - to take a stand and address the obvious problems in the industry. We've already had a few blogs, but nothing on a major site.

This is the make-it or break-it for Games Journalism. As far as I can see, this is a real opportunity for a reporter with balls to take on the corruption and win awards and crap. And be loved by Gaffers everywhere.

Because if there is an issue - and it seems pretty clear that there are issues with the way PR treats reporters - then someone needs to talk about it. And no one on the big sites finds it newsworthy.

A damn shame. But until someone with real clout speaks up, this unrest will just simmer.
 
TotalBiscuit's (Youtube personality, commentator, whatever you want to call it) views on this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S2keHyS_Ooo&feature=plcp

John Davison (1UP, What They Play, CBS whatever it was, something mobile) smelled the bacon a while ago, too, when he noticed how huge Machinima is on Youtube.
I've watched a few of TB's opinion segments, but this was really excellent. Took him up on his advice and subscribed.
 
I would suggest that if you are continuously misrepresenting yourself on Twitter and that if taking your opinions from Twitter, opinions that you freely shared, is not fair, then you should probably stop using Twitter as it is apparently both pointless and misleading.

The larger conversation here, the conversation about ethics and limits and the relationship between press and PR, is what I find interesting.
The problem is that the "larger conversation" has a lot to do with the failings of people like you - people who pay lip service to the issue while doing their best to minimize it, changing the subject to being about dat crazy Neogaf and their conspiracy theories, declaring the subject boring, telling people that they should stop paying attention to this and read Kotaku's fine coverage of Dennis Dyack instead, etc.

You fell into a very familiar pattern. You, Totilo, etc, are trotting out EXACTLY the same thing we see every time anything related to media criticism comes up. It's an absolutely broken record. Which makes it impossible for us to take you seriously when you claim to take this seriously.

"Game journalists respond to criticism with dismissal and wagon-circling - details at 11"
 
Hey Kotaku guys.


I know it will probably cost GAF a few laughs but just STOP posting.

You don't get it. Thats the problem but clearly we are not going to fix it. At this point you have spent more time saying why you are not covering this story then it would have taken to write a short news story yesterday about it.


Just go back to writing about cosplay and posting videos of your sweet free swag.


But before you go please read the OP of this thread. Read the posts from Jeff Green and Shawn Elliot because they a did better job explaining the problem then any random poster on gaf has then just for kicks read the links from other sites that did report on this story and then think about the way you guys handled this story and handle yourselves professionally when you go to a swanky e3 party or do a unboxing video of $500 worth of stuff a publisher sent you to review there $60 game then maybe you will get why some people think people in your profession can sometime seen seen as shameless hacks.

Oh and the SK story was cool. So was leaking the MW3 script last year. If you had more then 2 stories in recent memory I could remember then maybe the sites rep would be a bit better. You should get on that.

This issue is bigger then your little site and its history of problems so stop making it about it.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.