"Ethics and Journalistic Integrity"

[Denial]

There is no need for hypotheticals, the entire Polygon Ethics Statement is available on their site. There is no insignificant clause applicable to Patreon.

 

There is no discussion of Patreon at all, or of donations. So, yeah, that's interesting. Let's say I give $5 to a women's shelter every month. Should I recuse myself from covering all women's shelters? Should I recuse myself from covering that specific women's shelter? These are interesting questions worth discussing. One interesting question there is where it is seen as meaningful - whether it is always meaningful, no matter the amount, or whether the amount is significant. If I stick my head around the editor's door and say "oh, by the way, I'm donating $5 a month to this indie dev, is that a conflict of interest?", and the editor says "No, that's the equivalent of paying for a cup of coffee while talking with her, don't worry about it" - or indeed "You're an opinion columnist; if it's your opinion that that's an OK thing to do, be ready to discuss and defend it" - what happens then?

I would imagine either that Patreon is a sufficiently new phenomenon that the ethics are still being worked out, or that this kind of microdonation is not considered by Polygon a meaningful ethics issue. That's definitely a discussion that has been had in various places.

 

However, it is nonetheless I think relevant that this discussion is borne out of a sustained assault on a female game developer, and on anyone who is supporting her, to try to create a chilling effect on covering female devs or supporting female devs who are being harassed. If you want to ignore that, then that's absolutely your privilege to do so - as it was privilege, I think, that meant that the Doritogate column didn't take into account that calling out a woman by name was going to lead to the rest of the article - the more specifically meaningful stuff - being drowned out by the noise of a campaign against that woman.

[clyde]

Do y'all look at the ethics-policy of a site when you are deciding which site to read? This thread is making me realize how different my consumption of games-writing is from others.

[feelthedarkness]

I don't fully understand the Patreon aspect, as it seems like reverse situation of the kind of payola an ethics policy prevents. It seems very close to forbidding game journalists to buy the kind of games they want to support? Isn't covering a game/or designer for a larger site essentially the same motivation? Getting the word out about something you believe is important or worthy of attention. 

 

Also, while I fully understand that two things can be wrong at the same time, are these ethics enthusiasts familiar with the way our government has been interacting with the press that covers them over the past 20 years? How the nature of that access has shaped what wars the United States have started? 

[Bjorn]

Do y'all look at the ethics-policy of a site when you are deciding which site to read? This thread is making me realize how different my consumption of games-writing is from others.

 

No, but I find media ethics fascinating and its one of my favorite topics, so I'm happy to participate

 

Personally I scan Joystiq for headlines of the days gaming news, do the same for RPS for PC stuff Joystiq misses, and then follow a handful of individual writers who I trust and/or particularly like and read their stuff.  Then I trust a place like the Idle Forums to point me towards other interesting things I ought to read/watch.

 

 

Allow me to apologize in advance if this post offends anyone.  I have Asperger's disease (aka high-functioning autism) so I tend to come off combative when that isn't my intention, which is only exacerbated by text-only communication.  That being said, here is my problem with ethics as we understand it in journalism.

 

I understand what you mean, but don't find that over combative.  If you're interested in how regular journalists approach this, many places use the SPJ's Code of Ethics as a general model, and then tailor it with specifics applicable to their organization.  The Act Independently and Be Accountable sections would be most appropriate to gaming blogs. 

 

An interesting counterpoint is that many news organizations cover not just breaches of trust, but things like the ethics of reporting well and on recognizing the harm that may be caused by lazy or unthoughtful reporting.  I don't know of any gaming outlet that considers these points in their ethics policies, even though both of those areas apply to them.  Like neither Polygon nor Joystiq even mention plagiarism, the cardinal sin of journalists.  Which is really interesting.

[singlespace]

Do y'all look at the ethics-policy of a site when you are deciding which site to read? This thread is making me realize how different my consumption of games-writing is from others.

 

Nah, but I respect establishments more who take the time to consider these issues carefully. Polygon was probably the first site where I took the time to read through their entire policy because at one point Justin McElroy was making a point of how they take issues of journalism seriously. Ever since then I've had this thought, right or wrong, that Polygon was special because they aspired towards something a bit different than other establishments.

[singlespace]

I don't fully understand the Patreon aspect, as it seems like reverse situation of the kind of payola an ethics policy prevents. It seems very close to forbidding game journalists to buy the kind of games they want to support?

 

Go back to post #25 and read a few of the subsequent posts, the subject is discussed a bit there, but yeah part of the contention is whether or not Patreon should be viewed as purchasing games or as a material contribution.

 

Also, while I fully understand that two things can be wrong at the same time, are these ethics enthusiasts familiar with the way our government has been interacting with the press that covers them over the past 20 years? How the nature of that access has shaped what wars the United States have started? 

 

Ethical issues in general journalism in recent years make any issues in the gaming media look like blemishes on paragons of virtue. I don't think anyone is under the illusion that the issue of Patreon is somehow a Big Deal, or that journalism in general is some kind of perfect machine that the gaming media should aspire to become.

[Dewar]

My gaming news consumption mostly revolves around whatever links that people find interesting enough to post in whatever forum I'm following at the time. I don't generally do enough research to determine if any given article is "ethical."

 

My gaming media consumption revolves around finding a few personalities that I like, and following them and learning about other cool places by the guests they have on. As I'm in it more for the personalities than the cold hard facts, ethics don't concern me so much. In fact, some of the best Giant Bomb coverage has been with developers that they're great friends with and surely biased.

 

Hmm, this makes me try to figure out how this all started. First I was on the PA forums after going to PAX, having a great time, and wanting to stay in contact with those people. Then I was in a splinter group that broke off into it's own forum. Some folks on that forum made a crappy podcast, in which they mentioned the Giant Bombcast. I listened to all of those, and then branched out to other Whiskey Media podcasts, including Tested. On Tested's big Octobercast, the Idle Thumbs came on, and now I'm here. Add to that some EVE time that got me sucked into a now defunct British podcast ring that still has a couple of shows I listen to, as well as a long time fandom of Red versus Blue, and that pretty much wraps up my media intake.

[Hermie]

I'm kinda glad the discussion circled back around to this, because my Twitter feed is discussing it right now, and I'm here mulling it over.

 

What broke it open for me was reading this sentence again: 

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.

 

The key word used is "product". Video games are products, by this line of thinking. And that is how many of the people arguing about corruption are thinking too. "How can they recommend this product to me if they have been affected by the producer of said product?". 

 

Instead, what if we think of video games as (here it comes) art? Or at the very least, we think of the makers of them not as "developers" (a moniker also used for software coders and urban planners), but as auteurs, as creators? If they have a proven track record as a creator, it makes sense to subscribe to them monthly and trust that they will continue to produce creative works that one, as a critic or journalist, can enjoy and even write about.

 

The rest of qouted post from Singlespace underlines this way of thinking, so I included it in the quote. 

 

 

Of course, this doesn't touch on divulgance or not, but it makes sense of why it feels okay that a writer should be able to back a Patreon at all, even if they aren't "purchasing a product" with every donation. (at least in my head)

[clyde]

When I was in Athens, Georgia, I became friends with a vinyl-record dealer. He was really good at dealing records. Before Spotify or Pandora, I could give him a list of the albums I liked and he could hand me one I would fall in love with. Similarly I've had discussions with friends about music where they explained how to enjoy a song and then I would have the ability to appreciate something I never could before.

These are the two ideals I have in mind when I'm reading about games. So you can see how ethical guidelines are of no use to me.

[Dewar]

Those sorts of interractions are what I look for in life Clyde.

[itsamoose]

Perhaps we could benefit from a practical example, if only to dissect the issue further.  As we know each year the PAX and E3 expo, which provide the public the ability to purchase tickets, are attended by journalists.  While press tickets can be obtained for free, general admission tickets are sold at $110 (4 day PAX pass) and $795  respectively.  The question then becomes what is the dollar value of a press pass for these events given the general admission cost?  Then if a journalist acquires a free pass, is this considered a gift and what value, if any, should be associated with it?

[Nachimir]

At the beginning of that argument, before I went out and it ballooned up by several pages, I thought use of "status quo" was a particularly troubling one on several grounds. One: Poor awareness and definition of what that is. Two, as Hermie highlights: a seeming lack of awareness that the status quo is largely about treating games and game-related works only as products.

 

Quickly, to the Video Games Monastery, where no one does things with penises or free lunches and the result is fair and balanced product reviews to enhance my consumer lifestyle without making ripples.

[singlespace]

 

These are the two ideals I have in mind when I'm reading about games. So you can see how ethical guidelines are of no use to me.

 

I think we can all agree that Idle Thumbs is one of the most interesting pieces of gaming media available today. One of my favourite pieces of video game content has been Steve Gaynor's Tone Control. For me, much of the most interesting content on games is easily the most biased.

 

It's natural that much of the most interesting discourse on any subject comes from those who are most involved. People become increasingly involved in whatever things they love in life and that's a great thing. But I don't think this renders ethical guidelines useless.

 

When Steve Gaynor interview Neil Druckmann, knowledge of who they are and how they relate to the discussion at hand is inherent. We understand who they are and what that means. When we are faced with a journalist, this is not necessarily the case.

 

Ethical guidelines provide a measure of protection to what is often the only lens by which we can view a world that is inaccessible to us. Whether it is due to time, or knowledge, or simply where we find ourselves in life, there are many topics where we must simply take the word of those who relate the news to us. Ethical guidelines serve to give us some small measure of assurance that this lens is fair.

[Denial]

Instead, what if we think of video games as (here it comes) art? Or at the very least, we think of the makers of them not as "developers" (a moniker also used for software coders and urban planners), but as auteurs, as creators? If they have a proven track record as a creator, it makes sense to subscribe to them monthly and trust that they will continue to produce creative works that one, as a critic or journalist, can enjoy and even write about.

 

This is particularly relevant for the kind of people who are using Patreon for games. Like Cara Ellison is using it to create writing that is then distributed for free on the Interwebs. Zoe Quinn is making games and releasing them for free... Patreon is interesting partly because, instead of trying to get people to pay for a single object, you're often asking people to support a practice that makes content available for free, thus preventing it from having to be pitched to and tweaked to fit a publication.

(Personally, I'm a big fan of editors, and editing, and house styles, but I can see a case for some work not having to deal with them.)

 

Of course, whether it's appropriate for journalists to fund developers specifically, or indeed the other way around, is a related but separate question.

[anthonyRichard]

Perhaps we could benefit from a practical example, if only to dissect the issue further.  As we know each year the PAX and E3 expo, which provide the public the ability to purchase tickets, are attended by journalists.  While press tickets can be obtained for free, general admission tickets are sold at $110 (4 day PAX pass) and $795  respectively.  The question then becomes what is the dollar value of a press pass for these events given the general admission cost?  Then if a journalist acquires a free pass, is this considered a gift and what value, if any, should be associated with it?

There is no practical sense in which it could matter whether or not it is a gift. The functional purpose of regarding the acceptance of large gifts as being unethical is that it may influence the opinion of the writer about the game or company. An E3 ticket isn't from a specific game or company. It is from an organization representing the entire games industry (or some significant portion of it). There is no plausible situation in which the opinion of the writer could be influenced in favor of any specific game or game company by the 'gift' of an E3 ticket, and so it is ethically neutral.

A PAX ticket is arguable, I suppose, since PA has been involved directly in a few games. I would not be impressed by the argument, though.

[prettyunsmart]

There is no practical sense in which it could matter whether or not it is a gift. The functional purpose of regarding the acceptance of large gifts as being unethical is that it may influence the opinion of the writer about the game or company. An E3 ticket isn't from a specific game or company. It is from an organization representing the entire games industry (or some significant portion of it). There is no plausible situation in which the opinion of the writer could be influenced in favor of any specific game or game company by the 'gift' of an E3 ticket, and so it is ethically neutral.

A PAX ticket is arguable, I suppose, since PA has been involved directly in a few games. I would not be impressed by the argument, though.

 

If you consider the ESA as the giver of the "gift" of a free E3 pass, it might be worth considering if the recipient of that "gift" might be swayed towards providing disproportionately large amounts of coverage to the games produced by members of the ESA, which tend to be larger studios and publishers. 

[Nachimir]

A journalist getting a free ticket to E3 then, during a review process, thinking "Maybe bump that up a few points, after all [developer] *is* a member of the ESA, and I wouldn't want low review scores to threaten those sweet press passes I've been getting!", or an ESA member having enough sway to nix a press pass becau-

 

Jesus. Fuck. I'm not a particularly big fan of games journalism, or even much journalism of any kind, but all of the increasingly byzantine arguments I've heard over increasingly trivial stakes during the past few weeks are just such a goddamn fucking stretch. It's like equating an E3 press pass or an action figure in a jiffy bag to pharmaceutical companies flying doctors to Hawaii (which they actually fucking do). Gawker sites are so hungry for content, they're not really keeping anyone or anything out.

 

There's a load of really bad games journalism out there, but I'm pretty sure it isn't the result of conspiracies, kickbacks, or freebies. Yes, there are shits in journalism and in other bits of the video games industry (like the executive who tried to get Steve Hogarty fired over this review, and recently a load of people on Twitter sharing that yes, Kevin Dent tried to get them fired too), but when they try manipulation/gossip it's typically limited, and beyond that they generally resort to lawyers, not a fucking gentleman's club. Watching all of this unfold, I have more confidence in the video games press than I did before. The thing I want to drill into every fucker's skull over this is that "the" games press, "the" industry, and "the" indie scene are all a lot less united than people assume and not organised in any of the ways people like to infer. 

 

Leigh Alexander should have had the final word on it:

 

the brave renegades toured the museum of video gmaes 'remember games' 'yes it is a shame corrupt journalist and women made them extinct'

 

Edit: Bang on time: https://twitter.com/misterbrilliant/status/504604481703915520

 

I think what I'm arguing for is that yes, press should be accountable and often scrutinised, but at the moment, there are a load of really stupid people trying to hold the press accountable for trivial things that influence little to nothing.

[prettyunsmart]

A journalist getting a free ticket to E3 then, during a review process, thinking "Maybe bump that up a few points, after all [developer] *is* a member of the ESA, and I wouldn't want low review scores to threaten those sweet press passes I've been getting!", or an ESA member having enough sway to nix a press pass becau-

 

Jesus. Fuck. I'm not a particularly big fan of games journalism, or even much journalism of any kind, but all of the increasingly byzantine arguments I've heard over increasingly trivial stakes during the past few weeks are just such a goddamn fucking stretch. It's like equating an E3 press pass or an action figure in a jiffy bag to pharmaceutical companies flying doctors to Hawaii (which they actually fucking do). Gawker sites are so hungry for content, they're not really keeping anyone or anything out.

 

There's a load of really bad games journalism out there, but I'm pretty sure it isn't the result of conspiracies, kickbacks, or freebies. Yes, there are shits in journalism and in other bits of the video games industry (like the executive who tried to get Steve Hogarty fired over this review, and recently a load of people on Twitter sharing that yes, Kevin Dent tried to get them fired too), but when they try manipulation/gossip it's typically limited, and beyond that they generally resort to lawyers, not a fucking gentleman's club. Watching all of this unfold, I have more confidence in the video games press than I did before. The thing I want to drill into every fucker's skull over this is that "the" games press, "the" industry, and "the" indie scene are all a lot less united than people assume and not organised in any of the ways people like to infer. 

 

Leigh Alexander should have had the final word on it:

 

 

Edit: Bang on time: https://twitter.com/misterbrilliant/status/504604481703915520

 

I think what I'm arguing for is that yes, press should be accountable and often scrutinised, but at the moment, there are a load of really stupid people trying to hold the press accountable for trivial things that influence little to nothing.

 

Just to be clear, I wasn't saying that E3 tickets = an ESA sponsored review score bump. That's silly. I suggested it semi-facetiously because I think the scrutiny being given to small indie devs over games writers supporting their work seems far less significant compared to the sway that larger publishers & lobbying organizations have.

 

I write things on the internet, and most of them are stupid. Most shouldn't be taken seriously.

 

EDIT: And just to clarify, I don't mean to say that I think all large studios are trying to pay for good coverage or anything like that. I just shouldn't write things in public places before I have a cup of coffee.

[itsamoose]

Jesus. Fuck. I'm not a particularly big fan of games journalism, or even much journalism of any kind, but all of the increasingly byzantine arguments I've heard over increasingly trivial stakes during the past few weeks are just such a goddamn fucking stretch. It's like equating an E3 press pass or an action figure in a jiffy bag to pharmaceutical companies flying doctors to Hawaii (which they actually fucking do). Gawker sites are so hungry for content, they're not really keeping anyone or anything out.

 

To be fair, any academic discussion of ethics goes in this direction.  At some point those guiding principles must become pragmatic.  While I admit these deep dives into particular actions or situations can be frustrating, they are necessary for the discussion to be anything but theoretical.

[JonCole]

God, Kevin Dent. Can some real, ethical journalists get on discrediting that human waste? Every once in a while a particularly controversial case of him swinging his dick around gets out, but then is quickly swept under the rug and he's treated all buddy-buddy by seemingly every journo and dev on Twitter.

[Larsen B]

Normally the question I'm about to ask is reductive and seeks to shut down or silence discussion but I'm genuinely curious for an answer: if gaming sites are corrupt, why does it matter?

 

Why does it matter if a game gets an "undeserved"/"bought" 10? Is it because people want to look at Metacritic and see only a rightful order of games? They don't want to be sold a dud? They don't want it to earn extra sales?

[brkl]

Bribing people would be a more reliable way to get high scores than putting that money in development. Games are already shit enough.

[Dewar]

*shrug* As a person who generaly doesn't have much use for review scores, I'd agree.

[singlespace]

Jesus. Fuck. I'm not a particularly big fan of games journalism, or even much journalism of any kind, but all of the increasingly byzantine arguments I've heard over increasingly trivial stakes during the past few weeks are just such a goddamn fucking stretch. It's like equating an E3 press pass or an action figure in a jiffy bag to pharmaceutical companies flying doctors to Hawaii (which they actually fucking do). Gawker sites are so hungry for content, they're not really keeping anyone or anything out.

 

Dude, chill out. If you've followed how this discussion has been going, it's largely been academic or rather just musings. No one here is screaming that games journalism is corrupt, or that games have been ruined, or that games media is terrible, or anything of the sort.

[Problem Machine]

I kind of think the whole rule against supporting Patreon's is real fucked up. This post by Brendan Keogh explains why better than I could.