The weird pride that's going on in proclaiming this a non-story is causing a shiver to go up my spine.
"i'm so sick of having to respond to people about this non-story".
The weird pride that's going on in proclaiming this a non-story is causing a shiver to go up my spine.
On the other hand props to Schreier for at least trying, even though he has a fundamental and apparently insurmountable misunderstanding of what the issues here actually are
So? There has been tons of confusion about what is actually in the box. We had to find out via twitter what was in the Special Edition.
I really don't see the big deal people are making of the unboxing, tons of sites do it.
I think the issues are pretty clear. Several reporters did something gross (PS3 contest), one reporter did something completely out of line (worked for a company she covered), and a columnist was either fired or stepped down because he wrote about all of this, his story was edited, and lawsuits were allegedly threatened.
This led to a broader conversation about ethics in game journalism and some of the issues that surround it. That, to me, is far more interesting than the previous incidents. It's pretty clear that what all those folks did was wrong; what's less black-and-white is the stuff I talked about earlier, like the relationships between PR and reporters, the effects of press junkets on reviewers, and all that goddamned swag.
As I mentioned, I believe there are different levels of what's okay and what isn't, and it's up to individual reporters and websites to sort that out. And I think that's an interesting discussion to have, but the topic keeps getting steered back to what Kotaku is or is not covering, unfortunately.
If I am misunderstanding something, please let me know.
I guess what I learned is I should just read the reviews from the NYT video games page.
I know there isn't much to really talk about now but with this thread slowing down and no one else really talking about it. This issue is doing exactly what the 'journalists' that refuse to cover it want... it's going away.
In a couple of days or even a week, most people won't be talking about it anymore just like they want.
I periodically trot out this piece of writing when it becomes topical. It's a long read but it tackles many of the issues important to several people posting in this thread:
http://www.gamasutra.com/view/feature/1542/pr_and_the_game_media_how_pr_.php
This is unreal.
The problem, like I mentioned before, is the gap between how you see yourselves and how we see you.I think the issues are pretty clear. Several reporters did something gross (PS3 contest), one reporter did something completely out of line (worked for a company she covered), and a columnist was either fired or stepped down because he wrote about all of this, his story was edited, and lawsuits were allegedly threatened.
This led to a broader conversation about ethics in game journalism and some of the issues that surround it. That, to me, is far more interesting than the previous incidents. It's pretty clear that what all those folks did was wrong; what's less black-and-white is the stuff I talked about earlier, like the relationships between PR and reporters, the effects of press junkets on reviewers, and all that goddamned swag.
As I mentioned, I believe there are different levels of what's okay and what isn't, and it's up to individual reporters and websites to sort that out. And I think that's an interesting discussion to have, but the topic keeps getting steered back to what Kotaku is or is not covering, unfortunately.
If I am misunderstanding something, please let me know.
This needs to somehow be a .gif that ends in GAMES JOURNALISM
Do you read any Tom Bissell? He's the guy that everybody at Kotaku and the rest of the gaming press should be looking up to, a guy doing video game journalism and criticism right. Check his work out at Grantland or pick up his book Extra Lives.
It's about PR influence on what is supposed to be unbiased organizations. Not only, in this case, is PR telling them what to say, but you could argue they're also buying them out with this needlessly extravagant box set. If you don't see anything wrong with the latter, or at least the former, something is wrong with you.
Did you receive it for free? That does make a difference here.Folks, please don't all jump on my throat for this, but what exactly is wrong with unboxing a collector's edition so people can see what's inside and decide whether or not they want to buy it?
It's hardly investigative journalism, but it seems like a useful service to readers who want to get a visual on what's inside those things.
Folks, please don't all jump on my throat for this, but what exactly is wrong with unboxing a collector's edition so people can see what's inside and decide whether or not they want to buy it?
It's hardly investigative journalism, but it seems like a useful service to readers who want to get a visual on what's inside those things.
You'd think that with all of the not-so-subtle hints Ubisoft PR dropped, that I would've figured out that there was going to be a tiger at our Far Cry 3 preview event last week. "It'll be grrrrreat!" they wrote. "Be sure to come on Wednesday, as we'll have a special guest!"
Folks, please don't all jump on my throat for this, but what exactly is wrong with unboxing a collector's edition so people can see what's inside and decide whether or not they want to buy it?
It's hardly investigative journalism, but it seems like a useful service to readers who want to get a visual on what's inside those things.
Folks, please don't all jump on my throat for this, but what exactly is wrong with unboxing a collector's edition so people can see what's inside and decide whether or not they want to buy it?
It's hardly investigative journalism, but it seems like a useful service to readers who want to get a visual on what's inside those things.
Folks, please don't all jump on my throat for this, but what exactly is wrong with unboxing a collector's edition so people can see what's inside and decide whether or not they want to buy it?
It's hardly investigative journalism, but it seems like a useful service to readers who want to get a visual on what's inside those things.
Folks, please don't all jump on my throat for this, but what exactly is wrong with unboxing a collector's edition so people can see what's inside and decide whether or not they want to buy it?
It's hardly investigative journalism, but it seems like a useful service to readers who want to get a visual on what's inside those things.
Folks, please don't all jump on my throat for this, but what exactly is wrong with unboxing a collector's edition so people can see what's inside and decide whether or not they want to buy it?
It's hardly investigative journalism, but it seems like a useful service to readers who want to get a visual on what's inside those things.
Uhm, all companies do this specifically to inform what is in the package. Dunno, seems like grasphing at straws trying to link journalistic integrity with... an unboxing.When you are repeating lines that Microsoft pushed you to say, it shows that you are thinking about those PR lines when creating editorials. Stephen incorporated PR bullet points into a piece of independent editorial content.
Folks, please don't all jump on my throat for this, but what exactly is wrong with unboxing a collector's edition so people can see what's inside and decide whether or not they want to buy it?
It's hardly investigative journalism, but it seems like a useful service to readers who want to get a visual on what's inside those things.
Nothing too horrible about it. But they could be doing real journalism and discussing an actual, very significant issue that everyone wants to talk about except the journalists themselves. A more useful service to readers would be acting like actual journalists, not super-ironically playing with your toys instead of addressing something that people are screaming in your ear that we want you to address.Folks, please don't all jump on my throat for this, but what exactly is wrong with unboxing a collector's edition so people can see what's inside and decide whether or not they want to buy it?
It's hardly investigative journalism, but it seems like a useful service to readers who want to get a visual on what's inside those things.
Folks, please don't all jump on my throat for this, but what exactly is wrong with unboxing a collector's edition so people can see what's inside and decide whether or not they want to buy it?
It's hardly investigative journalism, but it seems like a useful service to readers who want to get a visual on what's inside those things.
Unboxing videos are ridiculously easy hits. They don't require a lot of time to create and people apparently like to watch them. Unboxing videos is an easy way for a publisher to get on the front page when they're already through with all of their pre-release marketing but want some extra space on a website / extra mentions.LOL, no jumping on your throat, I've been iompressed with yoru tenacity in the face of pretty overhwleming criticism. The complaint I have is the claim of QUALITY JOURNALISM and CAN'T BE BOTHERED juxtaposed with BOX OPENING