Jump to content
JonCole

"Ethics and Journalistic Integrity"

Recommended Posts

This is what I hear in this debate:

 

"I like this game."

 

"Hey everyone, don't trust that person.  I know for a fact they payed for this game with their own money!"

 

And I only think, that makes me more likely to believe the initial statement.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I work partially in the field of financial reporting and the thing about disclosures (which we do when reporting anything other than raw data) is that they are disclosures of investments. That means if a stock does well, our employees who hold positions in that stock stand to make money from it. Last I heard ain't no game review site that pays a reviewer more if a game they reviewed well does well sales-wise.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I work partially in the field of financial reporting and the thing about disclosures (which we do when reporting anything other than raw data) is that they are disclosures of investments. That means if a stock does well, our employees who hold positions in that stock stand to make money from it. Last I heard ain't no game review site that pays a reviewer more if a game they reviewed well does well sales-wise.

 

The non-ironic use of investment really is aggravating.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That Brendan Keogh post is pretty good. I've not been able to articulate my discomfort at forbidding Patreon backing either, though it centres on it being only a few bucks a month in many cases, and that emotional investment can operate independently of money spent (i.e. there are a bunch of Kickstarters I supported, but am not especially emotionally invested in. I'd like to see cool stuff come from them, but accept it might not). A hard and fast rule relating to a specific service doesn't encourage journalists to contemplate ethics or when to recuse themselves, it possibly just contributes to a system of rules that can potentially be exploited or gamed.

 

This is what I hear in this debate:

 

"I like this game."

 

"Hey everyone, don't trust that person.  I know for a fact they payed for this game with their own money!"

 

Simultaneously, journalists are being criticised for paying for things and getting them for free. It's so dumb.

 

 

Edit:

 

Perhaps we should grow reviewers in special pods, and then incinerate them after a single review.

 

https://twitter.com/Smingleigh/status/504614946622439424

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is the problem we're discussing a class issue, or is it that "games dev and journalist peeps are tight"? It feels like you're just shotgunning a whole bunch of issues in every post. Just because things are related doesn't mean they're all equally relevant to the situation at hand. EVERYTHING is related somehow. But it's difficult to have any kind of meaningful conversation about everything at the same time.

 

I don't agree that there's anything particularly harmful going on because of the closeness of developers and journalists, at least not in the context of anything people are making accusations about, such as inflated review scores or whatever--those things have a totally different source in my opinion. If you have an argument to make about this, instead of just saying it's a problem, go for it. (Although that's probably outside the scope of this thread at that point.) Also, Kotaku did address the situation officially. The editor Stephen Totilo made a post about it fairly quickly. Before that point, there was no need for Kotaku to address anything because there was nothing to address. (There still isn't, but people decided to start acting as though there were.)

 Okay so this is carried over from the other thread. 

To answer your question about it being a class versus peeps being tight issue. The issue of class, race, or other power structures is that are all fundamentally founded on ingroup outgroup dynamics. "Peeps being tight" is just a micro example of a macro phenomena. Class issues, race issues, gender issues stem from the involuntary enforcement of ingroup outgroup dynamics. It's not just that they're related, it's that one is the foundation of the other. Social cliques are the basis of social classes. 

Also in the last couple of days it seems that Kotaku has become more transparent about stuff and I think that's good. Overall I think the issue here is that these groups haven't been transparent about where they're coming from. 

And that actually segues into something I was thinking about earlier today. So one of the more glaring examples of there being too tight a relationship has been the Patreon stuff. The fact that a journalist is a patron to something is OF COURSE a huge conflict of interest. If you back something you're invested in it's success....

But then again we see that modern political journalist also have causes they support. They still donate to poltical parties. And that reminds me of those early conversations bloggers were having way back in the early days of political blogs. What does it mean to be objective?

This was the position I came to. 

Objectivity is impossible. Humans are not objective, we are subjective beings bound by the limitations of our individual perspectives. Therefore, rather than striving for and presenting ourselves as objective political givers of news truthiness, we should seek to be transparent in our biases so that viewers and readers can understand where we are coming from when they consume our opinions. Well at the same time I do think there is something to be said towards striving towards greater objectivity and the last decade of blogging has done a good deal to weaken my faith in that position but I think it's still probably the most pragmatic position and I think judging on your discussions on game reviews it's probably not too far off the mark. People shouldn't pretend to be objective when they aren't, BUT they should be honest about their own subjectivity. 

And that's the thing that Kotaku etc weren't doing. People were trying to shut down dissent, yelling down people (like that sexual assault victim I mentioned), hack attempts, refusing to come forward or be transparent (and a couple of tweets from the unofficial of the main editor of Kotaku was not really as transparent as they should have been). There's a distinct "behind closed doors" vibe that was going on, the same kind of ingroup defensiveness that prevented Darren Wilson's name being given for a week. This kind of attitude doesn't keep anyone safe it just feeds flame wars and the Streisand effect, and makes people stupider and angrier. I don't think journalists need to be "objective" but I would like them to be open and honest. 

So I guess the point I'm making here goes like this. 

Games industry is cliquey and really tight right now. There's a lot of ingroup outgroup dynamics (which are the foundation of classism, racism, sexism, etc) that I find gross. This isn't journalistic integrity, but it is related, because when you have groups that are too tight and invested in mutual success there is a lack of objectivity. Objectivity is not itself possible though so at least I'd like journalists to be honest and transparent about their biases and where they're coming from. There is no Word of God, Walter Cronkite is dead. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There's a distinct "behind closed doors" vibe that was going on, the same kind of ingroup defensiveness that prevented Darren Wilson's name being given for a week. 

 

Well hey now friend wait a minute.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And that actually segues into something I was thinking about earlier today. So one of the more glaring examples of there being too tight a relationship has been the Patreon stuff. The fact that a journalist is a patron to something is OF COURSE a huge conflict of interest. If you back something you're invested in it's success....

 

Taken to its logical conclusion, this would suggest that critics refuse to review any game from any developer that they've ever purchased a game from.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Taken to its logical conclusion, this would suggest that critics refuse to review any game from any developer that they've ever purchased a game from.

 

That's also assuming patronage and purchase are viewed as fundamentally the same.  I don't think it can be taken that far since patronage is paying for something to be made, ostensibly to some patron-defined specification, while a purchase is a transfer of ownership.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@MadJackalope
Ignoring the appallingly tasteless & off-base Ferguson analogy and the comment that 'OF COURSE' Patreon is an investment, as though that were settled or uncontroversial, you just think that there should be more disclosure? How much more? Polygon & Kotaku have already updated their policies in regards to Patreon, the Kotaku one in particular being pretty stringent. Is that enough now, or are you insinuating something else going on?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's also assuming patronage and purchase are viewed as fundamentally the same.  I don't think it can be taken that far since patronage is paying for something to be made, ostensibly to some patron-defined specification, while a purchase is a transfer of ownership.

And buying a game is an investment in future games from the same company. It's a stretch, sure, but is it really more of a stretch than equating supporting an artist with financially investing in a company?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Taken to its logical conclusion, this would suggest that critics refuse to review any game from any developer that they've ever purchased a game from.

Did you read everything I wrote? Because my point wasn't that people can't patronize game devs. Read the entire argument. 

 

@MadJackalope

Ignoring the appallingly tasteless & off-base Ferguson analogy and the comment that 'OF COURSE' Patreon is an investment, as though that were settled or uncontroversial, you just think that there should be more disclosure? How much more? Polygon & Kotaku have already updated their policies in regards to Patreon, the Kotaku one in particular being pretty stringent. Is that enough now, or are you insinuating something else going on?

I apologize, that was in poor taste. I should have known better. I was reading an article today about how police culture is created in an insular fashion and it reminded me of that. Not a good thing to bring up. My point was that opaqueness and insularity are not good especially in media. I hope you all can forgive me. 

I don't think it's unreasonable to say that being a patron of someone means that you're invested in their success. And if you read the entire argument the point is NOT that journalists shouldn't be patrons. My point was that being biased is an inevitable part of the human condition, and therefore people should be open about it. Also I think Polygon and Kotaku have pretty much done enough policy wise at this point. If anything I think Kotaku went too far. I think it would be better for them to allow people to patronize people but just have to disclose it. 

I think this writer had a pretty fair take on things

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think full disclosure is always the ideal, but I also don't think it's ever possible to fully disclose all the ways we're biased for or against things. it's something to strive for, and I applaud any steps taken in that direction, but I can hardly blame journalists for failing to disclose thoroughly enough in any but the most egregious of situations.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Kind of garbage quality, but there's a reason why this is the only thing people remember about Ratatouille:

 

 

Good journalism is fair, but good journalism takes a side. It's completely unreasonable to expect a journalist to champion a work without being allowed to support it in ways that actually matter. The only reason we even have journalists is to champion new works that need friends; Activision, 2K, EA and Ubisoft are perfectly capable of selling their games on their own.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@MadJackalope

Ignoring the appallingly tasteless & off-base Ferguson analogy and the comment that 'OF COURSE' Patreon is an investment, as though that were settled or uncontroversial, you just think that there should be more disclosure? How much more? Polygon & Kotaku have already updated their policies in regards to Patreon, the Kotaku one in particular being pretty stringent.

Perhaps too stringent I think: Kotaku's blanket ban on all Patreon usage seems like overkill, while Polygon's stance allows for contributions towards projects their staff are interested in, but still gives fair warning there is some association.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Perhaps too stringent I think: Kotaku's blanket ban on all Patreon usage seems like overkill, while Polygon's stance allows for contributions towards projects their staff are interested in, but still gives fair warning there is some association.

 

Yeah, I agree. Personally I think disclosure of Patron funding is silly, but probably necessary for pragmatic reasons, seeing how many people seem to have concerns with it. But a blanket ban? Crazy. Bullshit, even.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Games industry is cliquey and really tight right now.

 

I'd read the whole post, but I'm too busy doing cool things with my cool friends.

 

If you really want to get into clique stuff, then I promise: No matter how successful, well known, or well regarded you become in games or game journalism, that shit will still follow you around, and the reason for that is not because it's all-pervasive, but because you care about it and think it's real. It is more a state of mind than an actual reflection of social relationships. No matter what part of the industry or its surroundings you eventually crack into, you'll find that people make friends and hang out, some people actually hate each other in ways you didn't expect, no one is as united as they may look from afar, and a whole load of others are looking for the slightest confirmation of a ᴄʟɪǫᴜᴇ in order to tell themselves whatever narrative they want to about it, usually to confirm a set of conclusions they already came to.

People make friends. People talk about people and groups of people. People have profiles in media, and in turn those images become assumptions in the heads of others. That process is not under anyone person or group's control. The idea of cliques builds on these things along with all kinds of bullshit stories we tell ourselves based around antagonist-protagonist, giving those we feel excluded by the role of antagonists when they almost certainly mean no malice whatsoever. Sometimes, people just don't fit in with each other. I know a lot of indie developers, and deal with hundreds every year. Some of them are close friends, but there are a whole heap that I don't really fit with and who don't fit with me when it comes to social settings. I still do business with them, but we don't hang out. It's just humans, it's not a conspiracy, and the only way to deal with it is move the fuck on and find your people.

 

It's not that group behaviour is never problematic, but these things are human problems, not games industry problems.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Alexander Bruce lives in Melbourne, I'd like to know how he managed to get into a clique from Melbourne and make Antichamber a success, and also I'd like to know why he did show after show after show for years if all he had to do was join a clique to get recognition and accolades.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'll admit I don't fully 'get' Patreon - I've only become aware of its existence through various Podcasts that are supported through Patreon, I didn't really know that Game Development could be supported directly on there until the hulabalo came out in the last few days.

 

I personally don't think that its really an issue - as others have brought up, it’s really no different from purchasing a game when you really break it down - although at first glance it does FEEL different. Which, I think, is the crux of the issue. Disclosure is not normally to prevent conflicts of interest or impropiety, but it prevents the appearance of it. If I read an article, then find out later that the author is giving money to the subject, it will probably skew my perception of it in retrospect. If I know at the time I read it, that information allows me to be aware of the connection and that can feed into my interpretation of the piece and the subject of the piece.

 

If your outlet thinks Patreon is unacceptable for subjects of articles, then ban it, but if you don't, you should at least allow the readers all the information and let them make their own minds up

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you want to talk about the nebulous turn of phrase "invested in its success", should we not allow reviewers to review sequels of games that they reviewed? Because undoubtedly someone who played Mass Effect 1 and Mass Effect 2 would then be invested in the success of Mass Effect 3, particularly if they carried a save from game to game.

 

I honestly find this example no different from the Patreon example. Who's to say that money is any more or less of an "investment" than time for any particular person? If you're some rich asshole that reviews games (just pretend this person exists, lolol) wouldn't your $5 "investment" per month to contribute to a game's development be effectively pocket change "investment"? What if that rich reviewer (lolol) spent hundreds of hours on the prior games, which if you value that dude's time would amount of literally thousands of dollars worth of "investment"?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can't believe people are talking about this. It's a joke. Follow the money: there's only a problem when it flows to the journalists from developers and publishers, not the other way around. That's just being a consumer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can't believe people are talking about this. It's a joke. Follow the money: there's only a problem when it flows to the journalists from developers and publishers, not the other way around. That's just being a consumer.

 

This is worth repeating.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can't believe people are talking about this. It's a joke. Follow the money: there's only a problem when it flows to the journalists from developers and publishers, not the other way around. That's just being a consumer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can't believe people are talking about this. It's a joke. Follow the money: there's only a problem when it flows to the journalists from developers and publishers, not the other way around. That's just being a consumer.

 

This is worth repeating.

Share this post


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

×