Jump to content
JonCole

"Ethics and Journalistic Integrity"

Recommended Posts

Fair point, but buying something because you're a fan of ______ feels less substantial than what's happening with Patreon. Patreon requires more of an effort on part of the supporter than mindless consumerism. Again, not that I think there's anything inherently wrong with a writer contributing to a devs patreon; I just feel that in this case, because it's more direct than buying a game add-on, it's best to err on the side of caution and disclose. That would make me more comfortable as a reader.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

and you can define investment in such a way that just giving someone money doesn't qualify

 

You mean like the literal definition of investment? You need to have an expectation of profit for it to qualify. It doesn't have to be monetary, necessarily, but the expectation of enjoyment or the expression of support seems like a pretty big stretch to me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Second, Kuchera is actually in the clear here in my opinion.  Even if he didn't disclose.  Because journalists buy games.  Does every games journalist provide an excel spreadsheet of every gaming related purchase they make per year?  Do they need to update reviews announcing that they bought the latest map pack for a shooter they enjoy?  I don't think so, and you can make a pretty legit argument that's what Kuchera is doing with Patreon.  Is there a difference between him buying every DoubleFine game that is released, and him paying for everything that Quinn releases for free?  She provides the ability to directly pay her for all of the work she does as a pay-what-you-want model.  If Kuchera just went and paid her $2 every time she produced something, would that need to be disclosed?  He's automated a thing that he could do manually, that if he was doing manually, no one would criticize him for.

 

But he wasn't buying a game, and to me that isn't just a semantic difference. Your redefinition of Patreon sounds like an equivocation of what these services are meant to be: Patreon is literally supporting creators directly instead of on a product basis.

 

I have put maybe $1500 - 2000 into Kickstarters and Patreon combined and I have never once thought of it as paying for a product: I'm supporting a person or team so that they have a chance to do the things they want in life. When I put money into Kickstarter or Patreon, I don't expect anything back. I just expect them to give their best effort at following the things they set out to do. If they fail, that's fine, as long as they gave it their best. That's a very different thing than buying a game.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You mean like the literal definition of investment? You need to have an expectation of profit for it to qualify. It doesn't have to be monetary, necessarily, but the expectation of enjoyment or the expression of support seems like a pretty big stretch to me.

 

Well, yes, you would need to have a material profit for the strict definition of the word. There is a difference between giving someone money with no expectation of material return but to support a cause, is different than a financial investment, but I am not so certain that it is something that need not be disclosed.

 

Maybe it should be considered equivalent to intangible interests of any sort since there is no expectation of material return. Maybe it should be considered equivalent to an investment because a material financial transaction has occurred. The answer is not clear to me, but I know that it does not feel right to me for it not to be acknowledged in anyway. Perhaps I need more time to mull over the issue before I can articulate why I feel that way, but when Junior Mints was talking about Polygon's strict rules on contributing to Kickstarter and limits of $50 on gifts of any sort, it felt right.

 

Overall, it's not a huge deal I guess, it's just a single sentence missed and probably not much money at all, but it just seems wrong.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Fair point, but buying something because you're a fan of ______ feels less substantial than what's happening with Patreon. Patreon requires more of an effort on part of the supporter than mindless consumerism. Again, not that I think there's anything inherently wrong with a writer contributing to a devs patreon; I just feel that in this case, because it's more direct than buying a game add-on, it's best to err on the side of caution and disclose. That would make me more comfortable as a reader.

 

I don't disagree with that statement, and I personally favor overdisclosure versus underdisclosure.  But I also think you can look at Patreon as subscription to a single artist's output, and that's a completely valid interpretation of the service.  I understand people having other interpretations of it, and a different interpretation may reflect their experiences more accurately.  Kind of continuing this thought more in depth in reply to:

 

But he wasn't buying a game, and to me that isn't just a semantic difference. Your redefinition of Patreon sounds like an equivocation of what these services are meant to be: Patreon is literally supporting creators directly instead of on a product basis.

 

I have put maybe $1500 - 2000 into Kickstarters and Patreon combined and I have never once thought of it as paying for a product: I'm supporting a person or team so that they have a chance to do the things they want in life. When I put money into Kickstarter or Patreon, I don't expect anything back. I just expect them to give their best effort at following the things they set out to do. If they fail, that's fine, as long as they gave it their best. That's a very different thing than buying a game.

 

I'd say that's how you approach those services, but it's not how everyone approaches them.  Personally, I think the same as you for some Kickstarters, and others I view as getting a product, even if the product that I view myself as getting is just the email updates and any game that materializes is a bonus.  The Catlateral Damage KS campaign emails me pictures of the dev's adorable cats with each email.  PLEDGE TOTALLY WORTH IT.  On a serious note, the emails and videos from Neverending Nightmares really have been the product for me on it, as I've found getting a window into his experience and world completely worth the pledge.  Oh, and the same goes for a board game I backed, watching them struggle and fight to get the thing printed has ended up being more of a product than the game itself (which still isn't here).  For the board game and NN, their promise to update with certain insights into their process and experience was actually a significant reason I backed.

 

My understanding of Patreon is that it comes with an expectation, or in some cases requirement, of a certain volume of work created.  Some people have it structured as X amount per article/game/song/whatever, while others have it valued at X per month (Quinn is per month).  But even that per month amount carries an expectation of a certain amount of work that will appear.  Quinn does not guarantee, but says you can expect, on average about a game a month plus additional writings, videos, and jokes/gags.  I would view subscribing to her Patreon as a subscription to her content, in the same way I might subscribe to podcasts where all/most of their content is free (like Maximum Fun, Dan Carlin or Dan Savage). 

 

A compelling argument could probably swing me some on this, but ultimately the point I'm making is that I don't think it's an automatic, clear cut case of being unethical simply by contributing to a Patreon campaign.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@singlespace

I'm not necessarily arguing that Patreon & Kickstarter contributions shouldn't be disclosed, but I do think that they don't fall under the current ethical guidelines. I think that if we try to contort the current standards to fit these things then we end up broadening definitions so much that they become too open to interpretation, which plausibly might have the effect of lowering standards in the long-term. However, it seems clear that a lot of people have concerns about this and it might be a good idea to update the guidelines with new rules that are specifically tailored to these models.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My understanding of Patreon is that it comes with an expectation, or in some cases requirement, of a certain volume of work created.  Some people have it structured as X amount per article/game/song/whatever, while others have it valued at X per month (Quinn is per month).  But even that per month amount carries an expectation of a certain amount of work that will appear.  Quinn does not guarantee, but says you can expect, on average about a game a month plus additional writings, videos, and jokes/gags.  I would view subscribing to her Patreon as a subscription to her content, in the same way I might subscribe to podcasts where all/most of their content is free (like Maximum Fun, Dan Carlin or Dan Savage). 

 

Kickstarter has literal expectations written at each tier as well, but in reality both are realistically just best effort promises. I don't think I've backed a single Kickstarter or Patreon that has delivered to the letter of what they promised, hence in both a practical sense it's better to think of the stated commitments in the same way you would view the promises of a startup looking for venture capital, which is to say with the knowledge that is very likely that plans will change and all the things promised could disappear.

 

In a very real way, when you give money to a Kickstarter or Patreon, you're just giving money to the creators because there is a decent risk that nothing will come of the effort. If you give money with the expectation that there will be returns as described, you will be disappointed sooner rather than later. I suppose if you limit your contributions to only Patreons with exceptional track records, or guaranteed Kickstarters, then your experience will be different than what I described, but usually those people don't really belong on Patreon or Kickstarter in the first place.

 

A compelling argument could probably swing me some on this, but ultimately the point I'm making is that I don't think it's an automatic, clear cut case of being unethical simply by contributing to a Patreon campaign.

 

I don't think it is unethical to contribute, I just think that financial contributions to developers game journalists are writing about should be disclosed because of the possible affects those material contributions can have on the writers perspective. It's not as though giving someone money is inherently wrong, I just feel that it's better to disclose these kinds of things due to the possibility of irrational bias.

 

I don't know if I have an answer for you, but I feel that there is a certain pull that making financial contributions exerts on those who contribute. You feel as though you are part of whatever you contributed towards because there is a link in the form of money between you and those who you are supporting in a very direct way. I think that those kinds of feelings can introduce unexpected bias into a person's disposition towards whatever they're funding in ways that even receiving gifts or experiencing a game in a carefully engineered environment cannot.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@singlespace

I'm not necessarily arguing that Patreon & Kickstarter contributions shouldn't be disclosed, but I do think that they don't fall under the current ethical guidelines. I think that if we try to contort the current standards to fit these things then we end up broadening definitions so much that they become too open to interpretation, which plausibly might have the effect of lowering standards in the long-term. However, it seems clear that a lot of people have concerns about this and it might be a good idea to update the guidelines with new rules that are specifically tailored to these models.

 

That is a really good point.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I dunno, it's a pretty far stretch from Investment to Patreon in my mind.  Should they just start disclosing everything they like at the end of every article.

(Full Disclosure: this poster was watching Mighty Morphin Power Rangers on Netflix at the time of writing, something she pay $10 a month for)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That seems like a lot to pay to watch Power Rangers, but whatever floats your boat I guess.

 

Here's USgamer editor-in-chief Jeremy Parish writing about Mighty No. 9 on his personal blog - he was moderating the panel where it was revealed, and he mentions that he put a significant amount of money into it to be able to design a challenge.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(Full Disclosure: I backed the Idle Thumbs Kickstarter for $10, so anytime I post here note that I am biased. Towards Idle Thumbs.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's worth noting that Polygon has a policy (unknown if it's actually written anywhere) that dictates employees can contribute to Kickstarter campaigns but only if one of the reward tiers is for the game itself and their contribution is not to exceed the cost of that tier. Also unknown how this applies to non-specific Kickstaters or Patreons with less clear goals/rewards, but it's something I figured I should mention.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is Kuchera the only games-journalist who supports a Patreon of a developer they wrote about? Seems kind of coincidental that Zoe Quinn is part of another games-journalism integrity discussion so soon after a campaign has tried to shame her out of notability. It's as if a mob is continuing to try and isolate her and destroy the reputation of anyone who enjoys her work publically.

Not that I care to find out. I would rather read an article or interview done by a fan than by someone who has no interest in the developer succeeding. This chronic distrust in writings about art is really strange to me. Can't people read the results and decide for themselves whether or not the opinion sounds sincere? Maybe that is a special talent of mine and I shouldn't be trying to take away tools such as ethical guidelines that people without my ability depend on.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Slightly random thought, but... I just paid for Robert Yang's new game on itch.io, even though I didn't have to. Does that make me more corrupt (because I have given the creator money, rather than having to part with the money in exchange for the game) or less corrupt (I have paid for the game, rather than getting it for free)? Is it only acceptable ethically to pay the minimum market price? How about collector's editions? I'd be very suspicious of e.g a games journalist getting a high-value collector's edition as a review copy, but if someone buys a collector's edition and reviews it, they have paid more than they need to have. Does that make a difference?

 

Then I guess a similar problem occurs if you are reviewing a Patreon exclusive piece of content. Say an indie dev makes a game that only Patreon contributors get access to. Is it more corrupt to write about that  (while being a Patreon contributor) or more corrupt to write about the free content the Patreon funds?

 

In the case of Kuchera/Quinn, I think it's probably relevant to consider what "undisclosed" means. There's no attempt to conceal his donations to Patreon - it's a matter of public record. (Compare, for example, with the Patreon for "The Sarkeesian Effect", which I doubt has a lot of Polygon columnists donating but does have a number of pseudonymous backers). So, while it isn't being disclosed in the article, it's also not being concealed. It's in the public domain. Given that, I'd say it's probably oversight rather than malice that led to the failure to disclose on that article - or the donation falls beneath a set de minimis level. There's no attempt to conceal the donation more generally...

 

It's also unlikely that this information was not available to his editor, or his publisher. Not to suggest that people on the Internet can be a little solipsistic sometimes, but the fact that something was not disclosed to you does not mean it wasn't disclosed. I don't know if that was the case with Kuchera and Polygon, but I _very_ much doubt that Nathan Grayson's editor was not aware of his relationship. It wasn't disclosed to the readers, because journalists don't have an obligation to disclose details of their private lives if there is no conflict of interest, and Nathan Grayson recused himself from writing about Quinn after the relationship started.

 

The reason Kotaku ended up commenting on this, I would imagine, is because Angry Blogpost Dude claimed initially that the relationship started in early March, i.e. before the Game Jam article came out. He has subsequently claimed that that was a typo. Take that as you will.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's going to be really difficult to find any games-journalism about any of Quinn's work now that all of the journists who write about it will have a distinct the-internet-is-going-to-rescrutinize-everything-I've-ever-done-or-said-to-prove-I'm-bias bias.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can't imagine either Rock Paper Shotgun or Kotaku will care about being accused of bias, or provoking responses from sexist commenters.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've never worked in the the press but it is my understanding that companies will send journalists/reviewers free stuff all the time, and not just the game itself for review purposes.  It's odd that Polygon has said paying for some advanced tier on kickstarter is a violation, but accepting similar rewards from traditional publishers for free isn't.  Then there is the bit about not accepting travel or accommodations, but excluding publisher sponsored events from that list.  That whole ethics statement just stinks to me, the whole thing is littered with if-else statements about their so-called integrity.  Can someone explain how this is a legitimate ethics statement to me?  When I read it, this is what I get:  

 

We don't accept gifts, unless they are less than 50$ in value,

We don't accept accommodation, unless it is a publisher sponsored event,

We don't cover companies where a conflict of interest might exist, unless we put that information on the writer's profile page (this section isn't worded clearly),

We don't write about advertisements on our site, unless they are "affiliate marketing links", then we do and even take a commission in some cases,

We will devote a page of our site to giving away a product, but this is not an endorsement of that product because we say so,

We accept free samples, which are somehow different than gifts, even if those samples would have exceeded 50$ in value.

 

It sounds more like people trying to justify their getting free stuff than a statement about their integrity.  The theme of the statement seems to be that breaking their code of ethics is fine, so long as they tell you they are doing it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You didn't actually link the ethics statement - http://www.polygon.com/pages/ethics-statement

 

Legitimate question - are you regarding ethics as binary? Because compromise seems to be the whole idea around ethics, particularly when it comes to media. Example, "We don't accept gifts, ever" means that if they go to a catered event to cover a product, they have to bring a lunch. Saying "We don't accept gifts in excess of $50" means sure, they'll eat some catered food but if someone wants to give them a gift bag for attending that event that has some games or maybe a console in it they won't accept it because that kind of significant gift could sway their opinion.

 

We don't accept accommodation, unless it is a publisher sponsored event.

 

This is a misunderstanding. They will not accept travel or accommodation, period. They do however have to attend publisher sponsored events to get pre-release coverage, for instance. Activision/Call of Duty is notorious for this (partly because of the potential for leaked copies). In that case, they still do not accept travel or accommodation. They will disclose that they attended an event to cover that game because it's the only way they can cover it and it's responsible to say that.

 

This is so nobody can say "oh look, Polygon attended the review event in Hawaii they must be moneyhats". They'll attend the event in Hawaii, but not accept any payment for travel/accommodation.

 

We will devote a page of our site to giving away a product, but this is not an endorsement of that product because we say so.

 

I could be mistaken in the case of Polygon, but this is actually something that lots of sites do specifically for ethical reasons. Namely, lots of outlets receive weird gifts from game companies like statues, promotional copies of games or branded paraphernalia. Instead of keeping this dumb stuff, they often give it out in contests. For the same reason they don't keep it, their contests also don't endorse the products.

 

We accept free samples, which are somehow different than gifts, even if those samples would have exceeded 50$ in value.

 

I don't see anywhere in the text that they accept samples.

 

Lots of outlets take samples, review them, and then send back the sample copies. This is not uncommon.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, one can compare, say, the Guardian's code of ethics. That puts the cap on gifts at £50, which is defined as "insignificant value". That's not an unusual statement at all - if a publication wants to mandate that its writers decline all gifts, it can, but the idea that "nominal value" usually means somewhere between $25 and $100 is generally accepted, and allows for things like USB sticks (which are a handy way of giving people print-quality images, and more hassle to try to get back than it's worth for a company like Activision).

 

Samples are different from gifts, as described in the ethics policy - they are things one might write about. So, a review copy of a game is a sample, whereas a T-shirt is a gift, by the looks of it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They won't accept accommodation, but food and drink doesn't count.  This seems legitimate for a reporter being sent off to a third world country somewhere (working for the guardian, for example) who has no other option but to eat food provided to them, but it isn't like the reviewers are being sent to places like that, and bringing or paying for your own lunch is not out of the question. The entirety of Polygon's statement seems to be geared toward not upsetting the status quo and pushing the limits of what is acceptable.  I'm not necessarily regarding ethics as all or nothing, but the Polygon ethics statement in particular seems just like a way for them to justify bad behavior.  Granted I've never been in the press so I'm assuming a lot here, but it just feels dirty.

 

Edit: Clarification

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't see anywhere in the text that they accept samples.

 

Lots of outlets take samples, review them, and then send back the sample copies. This is not uncommon.

 

In the Product samples for reviews section they say they take samples, just not on a precondition of a review.  If they send it back afterwards I have no problem with this section, but it wasn't clear that is what they do in the ethics statement.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think that accepting a sandwich, a bag of chips, and a drink is "dirty". Do you seriously think that any reviewer would think more kindly of a product because they got a free lunch? I honestly can't believe that is "pushing the limits of what's acceptable".

 

Another thing that often happens re: samples is that the company accepts the sample, not the individual reviewer. I feel like this is generally much more acceptable, because it's still not personal gain and I think it's odd to think that a company accepting a $60 game would have any influence on anything at all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think that accepting a sandwich, a bag of chips, and a drink is "dirty". Do you seriously think that any reviewer would think more kindly of a product because they got a free lunch? I honestly can't believe that is "pushing the limits of what's acceptable".

 

Maybe not that specific example, but at what point does the line get crossed?  If I attend 10 events put on by Activision all regarding the same game, and eat 10 sandwiches from them valued at 6$ each, is that a violation of the ethics code?  If not, how much time need pass between the giving of gifts for their value not to be considered cumulative?  Even in the conflict of interest section, they say that they "Polygon staffers do not cover companies (1) in which they have a financial investment, (2) that have employed them previously or (3) employ the writer's spouse, partner or someone else with whom the writer has a close relationship." then in the very next sentence go on to say "When a Polygon contributor has affiliations of prior employment experience that would represent a material conflict of interest with their reporting, that information will be disclosed in context or footnotes of that piece." Am I reading that wrong or is that a direct contradiction?  They say they will not do something, but then say if they do that thing, it is fine because they will tell you about it.  Or perhaps they are fine publishing articles where a conflict of interest exists, but only if they employ that person on a part time/contract basis.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe not that specific example, but at what point does the line get crossed?  If I attend 10 events put on by Activision all regarding the same game, and eat 10 sandwiches from them valued at 6$ each, is that a violation of the ethics code?  If not, how much time need pass between the giving of gifts for their value not to be considered cumulative?  Even in the conflict of interest section, they say that they "Polygon staffers do not cover companies (1) in which they have a financial investment, (2) that have employed them previously or (3) employ the writer's spouse, partner or someone else with whom the writer has a close relationship." then in the very next sentence go on to say "When a Polygon contributor has affiliations of prior employment experience that would represent a material conflict of interest with their reporting, that information will be disclosed in context or footnotes of that piece." Am I reading that wrong or is that a direct contradiction?  They say they will not do something, but then say if they do that thing, it is fine because they will tell you about it.

 

Do they consider there to be a difference between a Polygon "staffer" and a Polygon "contributor?"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×