TunaMarshmallow
Member
.Why are you here posting if it doesn't matter to you and is unimportant?
.Why are you here posting if it doesn't matter to you and is unimportant?
That RPG Codex article is fantastic.
Zero apology necessary! I am 100% conscious of my shilldom. I took the paycheck, cuz I had to. (I'd have stayed in the press if there'd been a paying job for me.) My own internal policy is I just never shill something I don't believe in (I tried that once and, umm, it didn't quite work out for me.) I went to PopCap - one of only 2 or 3 companies on my short list - because I was always a fan, as anyone who read my columns/reviews/podcasts knows. It was NOT an easy decision for me, after my (first) stint at EA, because after a career lifetime of getting to say whatever the hell I wanted to, I wasn't sure I could - or wanted to - represent a company again. But my options were limited. And in negotiating the job, I made sure of two things: 1) My twitter feed stays MY feed, and I can continue to just do my own thing there, which I think it's obvious I do and 2) I never have to push a product I don't personally like. And they've been awesome about both since I started. And since buying us, EA has also been great about giving me the same space.
But yes I have now drank from the Game Company Money Teat, so you can take anything I say on this thread or elsewhere with that grain of salt. Hard for a guy to throw stones when he's sitting comfortably in ye olde glasse house.
Also: eat Doritos. They're awesome!
Well, we might have different views about the cultural importance of video games. I love, love, love, love video games, as a hobby. But I see them as basically unimportant, like I see hopscotch as basically unimportant. If I am wrong, and if they are important -- a possibility that I am open to -- then I would see value in some professional form of critical coverage. (In that case, though, as I said, that system of coverage would need to be built from the ground up. The current enthusiast press in place is not what you're looking for.)
Personally, just about every hobby that I enjoy is one that has a positively ridiculous and childish enthusiast press surrounding it that is (i) completely beyond the point of possibly becoming legitimate and (ii) awkwardly struggling for legitimacy against this impossibility. It's not surprising: most people who occupy spots in the enthusiast media are not sufficiently cynical to realize their lot in life and, so, they badly want to be seen as 'more'. (It's not just the people in the media, either.) Oh well.
Well, I'm on the message boards, in general, because I love playing and talking about video games with other people who like playing and talking about video games.
I'm in this particular thread because (I) I am avoiding my work, and (II) I disagree with a great deal of what people are saying in here, and (III) telling people who I disagree with that I disagree with them is what I do for a living.
Well, we might have different views about the cultural importance of video games. I love, love, love, love video games, as a hobby. But I see them as basically unimportant, like I see hopscotch as basically unimportant. If I am wrong, and if they are important -- a possibility that I am open to -- then I would see value in some professional form of critical coverage. (In that case, though, as I said, that system of coverage would need to be built from the ground up. The current enthusiast press in place is not what you're looking for.)
Personally, just about every hobby that I enjoy is one that has a positively ridiculous and childish enthusiast press surrounding it that is (i) completely beyond the point of possibly becoming legitimate and (ii) awkwardly struggling for legitimacy against this impossibility. It's not surprising: most people who occupy spots in the enthusiast media are not sufficiently cynical to realize their lot in life and, so, they badly want to be seen as 'more'. (It's not just the people in the media, either.) Oh well.
.You disagree with people saying that people who claim to be journalists should aspire to having ethical standards?
If you though are interested in all the culture surrounding games, if you are engaged in the communities, are interested in the creation and distribution of video games, its value in the current entertainment industry, and think that video games as a cultural medium has the potential to reach as much importance as any other medium, then that's not enough. So reform or rebuild, but this current system doesn't fit our aspirations to the medium. We outgrew the games writers. And as time goes by, more and more adult people will need and ask for mature, adult, trustworthy coverage of their favorite hobby.
"Lauren told us that she intended to pursue the matter with her lawyers and made it clear she would not drop it until it was resolved to her satisfaction,” Bramwell told the Penny Arcade Report.
"After taking legal advice we decided to remove the paragraphs and apologize to Lauren. We consulted Rab beforehand and, while it is always regrettable to have to edit a published piece, it was what we had to do and he understood. Furthermore, I’ve seen a few people suggest the removal of the paragraphs ‘gutted’ the article, which I do not agree with - I believe that Rab’s point is still clear."
"The key to the power of libel suits is the huge cost involved: the losing party has to pay the court costs. This can be crippling, amounting to 10 times any damages that are awarded. The cost of libel actions in England and Wales is 140 times higher than the European average,” The Bureau of Investigative Journalism reported. "This… has led to a system where the merest whiff of libel is enough to have editors hastily spiking articles, settling out of court or withdrawing offending material rather than be financially crippled in the fight to publish."
That is a pretty great deal you managed to negotiate, but how would that actually work? Let's say EA decided to license Hooters Roadtrip 2: Ho-Bros Go Hootering and had Popcap develop it. Would you, like, not be required to hand out the titty funbags stress relievers at E3 2013? Would someone else in the company take over doing PR for it?
Indeed, therefore they need somebody to tell them that the title they have claimed comes with certain responsibilities, which is what this thread is about.
Some morons with Ph.D.s confuse everyone by calling themselves doctors.
.People with PhDs are doctors...
Sure. Remind them of what the real job looks like, just to help them realize that they don't have that real job (and never will!). I'm all for that. I'm just saying: don't tell them what the real job looks like with the hope of seeing them morph into the genuine article.
I think we have a bit more info on this. Via Penny Arcade.
More at the source. Good piece from Kuchera.
Well, we might have different views about the cultural importance of video games. I love, love, love, love video games, as a hobby. But I see them as basically unimportant, like I see hopscotch as basically unimportant. If I am wrong, and if they are important -- a possibility that I am open to -- then I would see value in some professional form of critical coverage. (In that case, though, as I said, that system of coverage would need to be built from the ground up. The current enthusiast press in place is not what you're looking for.)
Sure. Remind them of what the real job looks like, just to help them realize that they don't have that real job (and never will!). I'm all for that. I'm just saying: don't tell them what the real job looks like with the hope of seeing them morph into the genuine article.
Posted? Ben Kuchera has another report:
http://penny-arcade.com/report/edit...-libel-law-and-the-gaming-press-why-this-stor
.
MCV as a publication has a history of mixing marketing and reporting: their US reporter also works as a content developer for Arcen games, where he heads up marketing and PR.
The problem, though, is in how gaming sites try to speak out of both sides of their mouths. If all they reported on was information handed to them by publishers and through PR, I'd agree with you. If all they reported were release dates, trailers, collector's editions, etc., I'd agree with you.My first claim (about the unimportance of the games media for enthusiasts [the strictly business side is an independent matter]) is rooted in the fact that I cannot locate a possible positive, important role that it might play in gaming that would not be *better* played by non-professional sources. An independent, protected, professional media is important in many domains because it better serves democratic ideals, by ensuring appropriate distribution of information, educating the citizenry, and so on. When we're talking about games, though, I'm just not sure what important role there is to be played by the media. In fact, every single critical interest conceivably served by a 'serious' games media strikes me as one that is likely to be better served by non-professional, casual sources.
And this just comes down to personal philosophy. Either you believe that institutions are capable of change or you don't. History suggests that institutions are, in fact, quite capable of change. In fact, those that don't change generally don't last.My second claim (directed at those who would like to salvage the games media) is arrived at by (a) looking at the way that entry into the games-media profession works (in terms of education and background), the way that games-media outlets function and pay the bills, and the way that they interact with the targets of their would-be criticism and (b) comparing that to how things work in any standard media domain. You are not going to turn the games media into 'real' media by application of some principles. It would require a new start. (See above: I do not care about whether there is a new start!)
This is the difference between morals and ethics. Morals are relative, ethics are codified. I don't think anyone believes journalists are generally doing anything morally wrong. Some are. And they will hopefully be taken to task for it. But many of the rest aren't doing anything morally wrong. However, they are complicit in a culture that is in need of an ethical wake-up call.Now, about the moral stuff. As I tried to indicate above, I don't see anyone behaving unethically. But I've not looked very closely. Perhaps some people are directly lying and deceiving others. That's, of course, a moral problem. But as a general matter I do not have a significant moral problem with the way that the enthusiast press functions. I just think some chunk of its members are silly, goofy, excited, barely literate children. And, hey, good for them. Make me some vids!
Reporting on unimportant matter is part of journalism though. Features and sports writers are held to the same ethical standards as investigative journalists. Really, the vast majority of news is rather unimportant.
So it looks like Kuchera has confirmed Wainright threatened legal action.
She just keeps digging the hole deeper.
It'll be interesting to see how long this follows her.
It’s been claimed that these are the actions of a naive, young reporter, but she tweeted that her knowledge and studies of media law are finally coming in handy. She knew exactly how to shut the story down.While most reporters find these libel laws to be indefensible to anyone who supports a free press, Wainwright’s knowledge of their power proved to be a powerful weapon.
MCV as a publication has a history of mixing marketing and reporting: their US reporter also works as a content developer for Arcen games, where he heads up marketing and PR.
I agree.This story isn’t going away, and it’s dangerous to ignore it.
Posted? Ben Kuchera has another report:
http://penny-arcade.com/report/edit...-libel-law-and-the-gaming-press-why-this-stor
Would advise you to click through so that we can 'reward' journalists covering it. But the article includes:
- Quotes from Tom Brambell regarding the legal threats received - basically it appears they came from Wainwright personally rather than Intent media. Intent did also contact Eurogamer, but separately.
- Commentary on why this isn't being reported on in various quarters, and rebuttals to Stephen Totilo's position
... and various other bits of context.
edit - oopsies, beaten
Schrödinger's cat;43742695 said:This has been a fascinating discussion to read, participate in and observe. Thanks to all participants for such stimulating debate, opinion, fact-hunting, .gifs and views. Thanks also to any games writers that have contributed and offered their view on the topic. It may not match my view but I appreciate the effort to engage with your audience on such a prickly issue. Finally, thanks to the individuals that have been providing updated summaries and reposting quote-worthy posts from earlier in this topic. I certainly missed some of them the first time around and have really benefited from them being pointed out to me.
This is a great topic and shows just what value talking something through can do. It's really a credit to this community.
OK, enough with the gushing. I just needed to get that off my chest.
In spite of some comments made suggesting lack of interest I think that scale and pace at which this discussion grew really shows just how much interest there is. The number of comments on the original Eurogamer article also show this. As does feedback from some of the other handful of articles published on this issue in the last few days.
So can we, as consumers, capitalise on this momentum in any way? Get some traction?
A naive thought occurs to me that perhaps some sort of idealistic charter could be drawn up by gamers. Maybe even hammered out with some of the writers that have participated in this topic. To manage expectations on both sides of an article and to make a straightforward point of reference for what an upstanding gamer/consumer/customer would expect. I dunno, I'm just spit-balling here.
And if such a charter existed, maybe even as a type of petition - to have those in favour of it say so. So that if someone else comes along and asks "but does anyone really care?" then there's evidence to say, yes - all these people care.
And if money talks then, ok, let's incorporate it. If people care, let's have them pledge a buck to show they care. Real money. From the audience - not from a publisher or an advertiser. Money matters so if we care let's really make it clear we're not just a bunch of conspiracy theorists with an entitlement complex. Put the money in a pot, give it to a charity like Child's Play.
I dunno. Maybe we, the ones who seem to be the most impassioned on this topic, can capitalise on this episode in some practical way.
Feel free to mock.
.This is the difference between morals and ethics. Morals are relative, ethics are codified. I don't think anyone believes journalists are generally doing anything morally wrong. Some are. And they will hopefully be taken to task for it. But many of the rest aren't doing anything morally wrong. However, they are complicit in a culture that is in need of an ethical wake-up call.
Having revised ethical codes about how writers are allowed to interact with PR, publishers, and developers means that they don't have to make individual judgment calls about the seeming "morality" of their decisions. Because in almost all cases, they'll believe (rightly) that they are acting morally. Ethics codes exist so that industries don't have to rely on those individual judgment calls.
This doesn't feel like the 100 other times this story has come out to me, this feels like a tipping point. Maybe (as others have insinuated) I'm being melodramatic I'm not putting up with this garbage anymore.
I feel the same way.
Two points. First, sports are culturally and historically significant in a way that games are not. (We can't really argue that point out here, though.) Second, the actual sports media (the part involving research, interviews, editorials, fact-checking, etc.) operates in a fundamentally different way than does the so-called games "media," in terms of its procedures, its hiring practices, its organizational structure, and its relationship to the subjects of its criticism and assessment. So my point about the unsalvageability of the games "media" stands. You could not, I believe, turn the games "media" into something resembling the legitimate media surrounding sports.
It's been pretty much five years since Gerstmanngate. Thinks aren't going to be different, you're right.I will bet you $500 that things will be not be meaningfully different in five years. Five years.
I will bet you $500 that things will be not be meaningfully different in five years. Five years.
Two points. First, sports are culturally and historically significant in a way that games are not. (We can't really argue that point out here, though.) Second, the actual sports media (the part involving research, interviews, editorials, fact-checking, etc.) operates in a fundamentally different way than does the so-called games "media," in terms of its procedures, its hiring practices, its organizational structure, and its relationship to the subjects of its criticism and assessment. So my point about the unsalvageability of the games "media" stands. You could not, I believe, turn the games "media" into something resembling the legitimate media surrounding sports.
I do feel the biggest thing is her using libel against another writer. Shes obviously not a nice person and whilst not too bright she is at least trying to be calculating.
It's going to get worse.I will bet you $500 that things will be not be meaningfully different in five years. Five years.
The libel laws in England are a scandal. She's probably too dense as to understand why, though.I do feel the biggest thing is her using libel against another writer. Shes obviously not a nice person and whilst not too bright she is at least trying to be calculating.