"Ethics and Journalistic Integrity"

[MadJackalope]

First I want to say I've really enjoyed reading this conversation. There's a lot of great points being brought up. 

 

 

If you believe that playing games can affect your investment in reviewing a sequel and that disclosure is the answer, do you think that reviewers should thusly disclose if they played the previous games in a review of a sequel?

Yeah, I'd say so. I think if subjectivity is unavoidable then having as much information as possible is good. I'd say if we accept that subjectivity, then games journalism should even be more personal than it is. 

 

Explain to me a person who's a critic but not a consumer. You think Roger Ebert never paid to watch a movie?

That's a good point. It's impossible to not be a consumer completely but I do think there is a difference in mindset. This is also probably a personal definition, but I look at things going like this. Creators -->Critics ---> Consumers. It's a spectrum of involvement and ideally I would like everyone to be Creators. Criticism is a form of creativity itself when done right, and consumerism blurs into criticism. Levels of engagement. And this is a personal ethical/aesthetic ideal, it's not really realistic, but I would encourage people to always engage in their medium more and more. That's not so much about the literal "did this person buy this thing" or "did this person get paid to write this thing" and more "did this person engage in the thing".  

 

I wonder about whether there's so much difference between moral and practical question in ethics. Isn't it reasonable to look at ethics from a rational perspective rather than an aesthetic one? The problem of a husband writing about a wife is both that it is potentially unfair and also that it runs the risk of the writing becoming irrational by virtue of how someone in a relationship perceives their partner. That is a good practical consideration if you want to have writing that is useful.

I just want to say I like this post, and the connection between moral and practical questions. 

 

That kinds of feels like analysis, though, and analysis typically gets far fewer hits than the thumbs up/down 'should you buy this?' review.

I think that's actually an argument for getting rid of the whole traditional "review" structure to begin with. I mean reviews still exist in things like music and movies, but as the Thumbs have said the model that games uses evolved out of the Consumer Electronics Product Review and that isn't really a good framework for discussing art. 

 

I was giving this more thought last night - I know for a fact that lots of reviewers of course own their own consoles and PCs to play games on. I don't believe it's required by any particular outlet, but obviously the practical considerations of being able to play a game for review at home in addition to at work can make reviewing a lengthy game more bearable. So, if you believe that sunk costs can contribute to a cognitive bias yielding higher value for something created, isn't it then possible that if someone owns for instance a Wii U and a PS4 that they'd place a higher value on reviewed games on those consoles rather than Xbox One and PC games that they can only play at work?.

I think you bring up some extra factors that could effect people's writing and I think those things are probably things worth mentioning. If there's one thing that is underdisclosed in the industry it's probably people's console preferences. I mean at least in so far as how big an effect fanboyism and the "console wars" bullshit gets in the way of people's writing. Baby nintendo games are lame!

 

At some point, even with a disclosure policy in place you're still going to have to trust the reviewer to be honest about following said policy. I really don't think that's hugely different that just trusting the reviewer to appropriately exercise the judgement to compartmentalize whatever feelings they might have from supporting a kickstarter/patreon and rendering an honest verdict regardless. And in the cases where they feel such compartmentalization is impossible, recusing themselves.

I've got to say that I really don't trust journalists to compartmentalize themselves. I don't trust myself to! Also I don't generally read reviews so maybe I'm the wrong person to comment on that in way. I mostly go off trailers and what I hear in the air. 

[singlespace]

What I meant is, if someone paid 10,000 for a retail disc I'd feel the same way.  Or 60 dollars to whatever.  Or 400 dollars for a console.  I don't feel like it being a Kickstarter is the relevant bit. 

Ah, I gotcha, so it's more about the actual value as opposed to the different avenues of contribution.

[juv3nal]

I've got to say that I really don't trust journalists to compartmentalize themselves. I don't trust myself to!

 

That's a valid point of view, and I wouldn't necessarily trust myself to either, but it's not my job.

[itsamoose]

This is a bit of a tangent, but given the second half of the topic it is something I have been wondering about in the last few days.  I've never been a big reader of kotaku or gaming blogs, I mean I'm aware of the content but for the most part skim what I do read.  Since this topic took off I began actually reading many of the press release and interview type articles and each one seems to almost be taken from a template.  Most of it is pretty basic stuff, technical details, who is making the game, where it can be played, etc.  Then the majority of these articles seem to be obsessed with the creator's inspirations.  Each of these articles puts such an incredible emphasis on conformity and comparison to other games.  I understand why this is, mainly because the act of play isn't easily relatable to anything but the act of play, but it seems to be emphasized to a fault.  Certainly this is nothing new, as evidenced by the meets-meets-meets running gag on the podcast, but should we start holding games writers accountable for inspiring this kind of insularity in the community?  I feel like many crying foul, while legitimate concerns do exist, are simply unable to articulate themselves because they are taught to talk about their hobby in rigid but somehow nebulous terms that often play on nostalgia.  Aesthetics are described in terms of the aesthetics of other games, mechanics are described by comparing them to other mechanics, etc.  Personally I don't think they are causing the problem, but most likely exacerbating it.

 

The situation I imagine is someone who is still young and is learning to talk about their hobby based on the way other people are talking about it.  Then suddenly a game like depression quest comes along, which can't easily be talked about in the same way, and this person feels left out.  Then an otherwise reasonable individual becomes enraged for no other reason than not being able to discuss this new thing in the same way that previous things had been discussed.  Suddenly it seems as though this part of their lives they've invested so much into is leaving them behind, and that makes them angry.

[Flynn]

Going through the most recent gaming journalism outrage thread: http://www.reddit.com/r/videos/comments/2f2c32/quinnspiracy_theory_white_castles_and_ivory_towers 2000 comments of internet rage against game journalists for complete bullshit, not even an argument about it in the comments that I could see (no dissenting opinion not downvoted to the point of being invisible).

 

This week just keeps getting worse and I can't stop reading the internet.    How did it get so bad so fast.  

[Cleinhun]

That reddit thread is pretty nuts. people keep saying things like "we're just trying to have a conversation about journalism" and "zoe is practically a footnote at this point" but then every other post is about how quinn and sarkersian are liars who are manufacturing outrage for profit. How is it that there are so many people on board with this?

 

And then there are posts like this one:

 They're scrambling to protect her because they don't want to be exposed as well. The issues here go straight to the top of the industry. So when everyone is involved, when everyone has secrets that are threatened to be uncovered, they all have an agenda to stuff this as fast as possible. Problem for them is it's just creating more attention.

They aren't necessarily protecting ZQ. They're all just self serving pricks who have found themselves wading in shit up to their eyeballs.

which is basically chemtrail level craziness.

 

How is this real life???

[Flynn]

If I saw them retweeted I'd think were trolls, but there are 100s of other messages with the same sentiments.  With 1000+ upvotes.

[juv3nal]

Lana Polansky has a good piece about Kotaku's policy change re: patreon.

[clyde]

Lana Polansky has a good piece about Kotaku's policy change re: patreon.

Seconded. That article expresses my frustrations on the issue much more clearly than I can.

[MadJackalope]

This is a bit of a tangent, but given the second half of the topic it is something I have been wondering about in the last few days.  I've never been a big reader of kotaku or gaming blogs, I mean I'm aware of the content but for the most part skim what I do read.  Since this topic took off I began actually reading many of the press release and interview type articles and each one seems to almost be taken from a template.  Most of it is pretty basic stuff, technical details, who is making the game, where it can be played, etc.  Then the majority of these articles seem to be obsessed with the creator's inspirations.  Each of these articles puts such an incredible emphasis on conformity and comparison to other games.  I understand why this is, mainly because the act of play isn't easily relatable to anything but the act of play, but it seems to be emphasized to a fault.  Certainly this is nothing new, as evidenced by the meets-meets-meets running gag on the podcast, but should we start holding games writers accountable for inspiring this kind of insularity in the community?  I feel like many crying foul, while legitimate concerns do exist, are simply unable to articulate themselves because they are taught to talk about their hobby in rigid but somehow nebulous terms that often play on nostalgia.  Aesthetics are described in terms of the aesthetics of other games, mechanics are described by comparing them to other mechanics, etc.  Personally I don't think they are causing the problem, but most likely exacerbating it.

 

The situation I imagine is someone who is still young and is learning to talk about their hobby based on the way other people are talking about it.  Then suddenly a game like depression quest comes along, which can't easily be talked about in the same way, and this person feels left out.  Then an otherwise reasonable individual becomes enraged for no other reason than not being able to discuss this new thing in the same way that previous things had been discussed.  Suddenly it seems as though this part of their lives they've invested so much into is leaving them behind, and that makes them angry.

I think  some of that is inherent in any medium. Film and fine art painting do the same thing. I think it's a larger problem in games though for 2 reasons. 1) The medium is younger and smaller. Film has over a century to draw off of, and painting several thousand. Games really only has 4-3 decades at most. 2) Many video game enthusiasts are incredibly sheltered from other mediums. I think if you took a poll of the average self-identified gamer their favorite movies would be something Star Wars or Marvel related and I'd say a sizeable chunk haven't read a book in years. Actually that's true of the general population in general but schools still force kids to read and so there are common touch stones that people draw off of. I don't want that to sound judgmental, but I do think it's a huge contributing factor. "Video Game Musicians" remind me a lot of "Christian Rock". People will listen to some really piss poor music because the lyrics reference Mario/Jesus. The cultural identity comes before the actual importance of the medium to a lot of people for various historical/cultural reasons. I think a lot of this is hopefully growing pains and will wear off, and one reason I like indie games so much is because they seem to have a wider familiarity with other mediums. 

Other mediums do the whole "meets meets meets" thing, and actually that's famously how to structure the logline for spec scripts in film, but because film has such a larger breadth to draw on as a medium it's less glaring a problem. And also because film grew up along side many other mediums, while video games has largely kept to itself. Queen or Trent Reznor famously have done lots of film soundtracks but video games almost always turns inwards to self references rather than gathering from outside it's sphere. That's another reason video games feels rather incestuous to me in it's touchstones.

[singlespace]

Lana Polansky has a good piece about Kotaku's policy change re: patreon.

 

The argument for uniform and ubiquitous disclosure makes a lot of sense to me, though some of the points leading to that conclusion seem a bit contentious.

[Problem Machine]

Jenn Frank submitted a piece about the controversy for The Guardian... and had her full disclosure nixed by the editors as irrelevant to The Guardian's actual disclosure policies.

[singlespace]

Jenn Frank submitted a piece about the controversy for The Guardian... and had her full disclosure nixed by the editors as irrelevant to The Guardian's actual disclosure policies.

 

It appears they decided they were in error given it now reads:

 

Update: Jenn Frank has purchased and is a supporter of Zoë Quinn’s work, although this is the first article she has written on the developer. Frank has also briefly met Anita Sarkeesian. 

[Problem Machine]

I think she pushed to get it added back in so that people don't give her shit about it. Not that it's likely to stop them.

[singlespace]

I think she pushed to get it added back in so that people don't give her shit about it. Not that it's likely to stop them.

 

Ah, that makes sense: pragmatic.

[Jordan A]

Ah, that makes sense: pragmatic.

 

Sounds more sarcastic than anything.

[singlespace]

Sounds more sarcastic than anything.

 

A bit of A, a bit of B. Win, win?

[BigJKO]

Am I the only one who thinks that disclosure is ridiculous (and probably meant to be)? Is that what everyone wants tacked onto every article about indie game devs? "Full Disclosure: I met a person briefly at a pub during PAX"

[Gormongous]

Am I the only one who thinks that disclosure is ridiculous (and probably meant to be)? Is that what everyone wants tacked onto every article about indie game devs? "Full Disclosure: I met a person briefly at a pub during PAX"

 

I hope not, but I wouldn't be surprised. It's not enough now to consider journalism by its actual content. We have to use the data glut of the internet to go digging around individual journalists' backgrounds to determine their relative merits, because hidden motives and payola are everywhere these days and impossible to detect otherwise, right?

 

Please everyone, tell me explicitly if you like or dislike the person about whom you are writing, on the basis of which I will believe or disbelieve your article. If you're quick about it, you'll save me the effort of even having to read it!

[Hermie]

Look at the scandal the geniuses have uncovered now. Where will the corruption end?

 

 

[Problem Machine]

Wait, what? Are they treating this as a crazy new thing? I thought that was common knowledge...

Do they believe a relationship between two writers at different outlets is ethically suspect? What's the logic there?

[Hermie]

I have NO idea.

[BigJKO]

OMG! "Journalist has a partner, scandal ensues."

 

"Full Disclosure: I am in a relationship."

 

Jesus christ, this fucking circus of privacy invasion won't stop. The ride never ends, indeed...

[Gormongous]

Wait, what? Are they treating this as a crazy new thing? I thought that was common knowledge...

Do they believe a relationship between two writers at different outlets is ethically suspect? What's the logic there?

 

If they're dating, they'll form the same opinions and publish the same articles. They might even be sources for each other's stories. That's how dating works, you become a weird half-person permanently fused to and partially controlled by your mate. It's a net loss for the journalistic community.

 

I'm only half serious, which is all I've ever been in this thread, apparently.

[Problem Machine]

(tangentially, i think it would be kinda fuckin' cool if patricia were on the cast sometime)