"Ethics and Journalistic Integrity"

[Bjorn]

As has been pointed out over and over, it's laughably absurd that journalists be expected to not be friends or friendly with potential sources or subjects.  It is literally almost impossible not to be, and the smaller the community you cover the harder that becomes.  My first reporting job was for a weekly paper in a town of around 4,000 people.  Imagine trying to write anything in a community that size without become friends with at least some people you would eventually write about.  When you think about the number of people that your typical games writer talks with in a year, it's probably not that different than covering a small town. 

 

Even some people I had an antagonist professional relationship with, I was personally friendly with when we weren't on the clock.  We each had jobs to do, and didn't get personally offended at the other one doing their job so long as at least a certain amount of respect was given.

[Merus]

I think that's being too cavalier.  Studied and measured social responses based on rules you read in a book seem too much like wearing a mask, faking normalcy, pretending to be someone else.  It seems like putting considerable effort into not being yourself, in hopes that doing so will get you accepted by others.

 

I knew I'd get into trouble by saying 'a book', so let me clarify that the books I'm thinking of are Teaching Your Child The Language Of Social Success, which describes unspoken communication rules like comfort zones, and Miss Manners' Guide To Etiquette, which gives a pretty good grounding in what etiquette is actually about and is also really, really funny. Neither book is about wearing a mask, like The Game would advise; they're about ensuring that you communicate your intentions clearly, and that you keep in mind how the other person might be feeling and try not to antagonise them accidentally. I feel like they're unobjectionable life lessons.

[Ben X]

Well, if you want the full story, the by now inevitable imgur is here. The takeout is:

 

I know that spelling/grammar mockery is the lowest form of critique, but really. Dude manages to spell "Riendeau" a different way every time, despite it being right there in the Twitter screencaps. Some people just don't respect their art...

 

I wonder if the misspelling of Danielle's name is an hilarious satire of the fact that she has a foreign name.

 

The dripping condescension as he (I assume, as you said dude) refers to her as "miss Danielle Riendau" is telling...

 

This is about the deep corruption of a journalist having such a close relationship with a developer that she replied to his tweet about Katherine Hepburn skateboarding, though. Where are the ones about two journalists being in a relationship?

[BigJKO]

That was this one Ben.

 

[Ben X]

Sorry, I mean the people calling for them to be fired and/or actually explaining what the problem ostensibly is.

[BigJKO]

Ah, gotcha!

[neonrev]

Man, I'd hate to be a journalist on twitter. You apparently need to do your best to never reply to anything from anyone who may ever make a thing or know someone who makes a thing you might talk about. I guess only the anonymous random dregs of twitter are the only legitimate, unbiased part.

Maybe that's the thing. Maybe big news sources paying more attention to random twitter and reddit traffic and ascribing news to it has given these guys the idea that they're the real baseline of opinion, and any relationships between writer and subject(s) are now indicative of collusion to those guys. The only thing, as far as I can tell, of merit to these guys is "research" preformed by an anonymous kid and disseminated at random. 

If whoever says a thing would rather not use their real name, it must be true! They simply must hide their name to protect against the jackbooted thugs of social justice.
(I really want there to be jackbooted social justice thugs for real though. I'd join up. Already got big stompy boots.)

[Denial]

I wonder if the misspelling of Danielle's name is an hilarious satire of the fact that she has a foreign name.

 

It's possible, but Occam's razor suggests probably otherwise.

[Nachimir]

Krystian Majewski tried debating with one of them at length. It's probably the most civil exchange I've seen on it, but the concerns seem to boil down to "Never mind the harassment, we think that might have been faked anyway, and much more importantly the numbers on the reviews might be wrong". I want to feel sad for them, to borrow some words from Charlie Brooker it's like watching a dog try to follow a card trick, but fuck this noise thoroughly. It's rolled on enough that it seems to have roped in gamers who weren't there at the beginning and don't understand the ways gamergate excuses prying into people's private lives.

 

Also, Mike Bithell being sensible on Twitter earlier today: 

 

"Now that we know REDACTED allegedly REDACTED REDACTED, can we ever trust indie game devs again?" Well.. yes.. because.. you.. alleged it.

 

I dunno. I don't want to dismiss whole thing, because there's enough people in games that corruption must exist.. I just think you [cont]

 

you can't see the wood for all the wrong trees you keep barking up #mixedmetaphorsarethebestest

 

Edit: Also this from Jim Sterling.

[itsamoose]

I want to feel sad for them, to borrow some words from Charlie Brooker it's like watching a dog try to follow a card trick, but fuck this noise thoroughly. It's rolled on enough that it seems to have roped in gamers who weren't there at the beginning and don't understand the ways gamergate excuses prying into people's private lives.

 

What you are seeing from that side of the debate is really the basis for any conspiracy theory.  They perceive some crime having been committed but are unable to see a clear perpetrator of that crime, therefore everyone with something to gain is guilty.  Any evidence they do find is seen only as further proof of a conspiracy, whereas a lack of evidence just means the cover up was that good.  The problem with trying to engage them is that this kind of exercise really isn't concerned with material evidence so much as trying to find some smoking gun that their worldview requires exist.  What is most unfortunate is that this supposed crime in their minds justifies any attacks made against journalists as some kind of popular uprising trying to upend the conspiracy.  If I were a journalist I'd be changing all my passwords right about now.

[Nachimir]

"Worst tabloid methods used by campaigners calling for better press ethics".

[Hermie]

Krystian Majewski tried debating with one of them at length. It's probably the most civil exchange I've seen on it, but the concerns seem to boil down to "Never mind the harassment, we think that might have been faked anyway, and much more importantly the numbers on the reviews might be wrong". I want to feel sad for them, to borrow some words from Charlie Brooker it's like watching a dog try to follow a card trick, but fuck this noise thoroughly. It's rolled on enough that it seems to have roped in gamers who weren't there at the beginning and don't understand the ways gamergate excuses prying into people's private lives.

 

Yeah, they seem to talk in a circle, saying nothing of substance except aluding to things that might happen. Also, everyone who joins the debate seems to have a different perspective/goal.

 

 

I'm actually thinking it might have been mistake for Leigh Alexander to post her article about the term Gamer. I agree with her sentiment, but it seems to have rallied a bunch of people that were Not Caring about the harassment and/or ethical questions, thus muddying the water further.

[JonCole]

I don't think it muddies the water, I think it has unified all the people who are doing things I don't agree with under one self-claimed banner. I guess it would be bad for people who had mixed thoughts on harassment and/or sexism and/or ethical questions and/or wanting shitty, samey games, but I have a problem with them all so I'm fine having them all take up the label proudly.

[Nachimir]

Maybe, but I think it's reasonable that it either won't survive much longer, or differentiating between players and gamers (as analogous to movie buffs) will at least make sense to most people.
 

Also, everyone who joins the debate seems to have a different perspective/goal.

 

Yeah, that's partly what I meant when I said the movement lacks a plausible promise. It's too complicated and messed up to have a single, measurable clear goal that people agree on. Without a clear endpoint, no unity among its adherents can last long. The instigating forum responds to that risk with posts about people staying on message (i.e. twitter flooding how-tos, new hashtags, etc.), but the cracks will appear and spread as they lose impetus. With only the "gamers are the real victims here!" narrative left, they'll lack the ability to really achieve anything.

[Atrak]

First up, I am not sure if this is entirely relevant, but I have to smile to myself when I think of the old PC Format/Gamer magazines I used to read as a kid. A review for a game on one page and an ad for the game on the next. If you think about it back then In no small way the publishers had a lot more influence on the journalists being that the magazine needed their ad revenue to exist. Of course the journalists (well most of them) still had to maintain some sort of objectiveness to be considered reliable. I am sure though it was pretty tough for an editor back then when your next paycheck relied upon the publisher of the game your journalist just submitted an article on that practically ripped the game apart. Of course websites still have ads but I think that the ad content is much more divorced from the website content than the magazines of old.

 

I guess my point (if I have one), is that none of this is exactly a new thing, surely it was worse in the past, as there was a lot less oversight in general. I'm not saying that we shouldn't call people out when bias can exist, but it just seems like it can't really exist on the same level anymore. There is just too much information and eyes watching everything. I guess like most things though it's all about perspective.

 

Atrak

[Denial]

"Worst tabloid methods used by campaigners calling for better press ethics".

 

From the SPJ Code of Ethics:

 

— Test the accuracy of information from all sources and exercise care to avoid inadvertent error. Deliberate distortion is never permissible.

— Diligently seek out subjects of news stories to give them the opportunity to respond to allegations of wrongdoing.

— Identify sources whenever feasible. The public is entitled to as much information as possible on sources' reliability.

— Always question sources’ motives before promising anonymity. Clarify conditions attached to any promise made in exchange for information. Keep promises.

— Make certain that headlines, news teases and promotional material, photos, video, audio, graphics, sound bites and quotations do not misrepresent. They should not oversimplify or highlight incidents out of context.

 

Like, literally the first things it says.

[Ben X]

[where is the evidence of] the people calling for them to be fired and/or actually explaining what the problem ostensibly is.

 

No evidence? FALSE FLAG FALSE FLAG

[MadJackalope]

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!

 

I think disclosure, ideally, means embracing the subjective nature of journalism and focusing more on the personal experience of that person. Which in effect is a higher level of disclosure, but doesn't necessarily mean that it's going to have to have a paragraph label before every article. 

 

I'm starting to think that additional disclosures of potential conflicts of interest wouldn't slow the invasion of privacy and mobbing. It's the thrill of the hunt. If journalists did provide additional disclosures, young sherlocks-in-training would just circle them in red, write "SEE!" beside it, and post.

I wonder if an actual ARG would fill their voids. Or maybe ARGs are exacerbating all this in the first place. Maybe they are addicted to the magical realism and agency of interactive viral marketing.

To me the entire point of disclosure has nothing to do with avoiding mobbing etc. I mean I want mobbing to stop but the point of disclosure and a more open media isn't to prevent the 4chan idiots, it's because games journalism needs to grow up and stop talking about everything in these pseudo official objectivist frameworks. Give me gonzo. 

Also saw this article recently and thought it might be kind of relevant to the thread https://www.pw.org/content/the_problem_of_entitlement_a_question_of_respect

It's sort of indirect but it's talking about the conflict over "entitlement" between young and old writers and poets. I think some of this stuff might be a bit of a generational thing too. As I've said before some of this might be more Old Media versus New Media than anything else. Old writers and poets complain that new writers and poets are entitled because they don't give respect to published authors and the Gatekeepers of Literature. But for a generation who grew up reading and writing stuff online, all that old media stuff is useless. Who the fuck cares if you got in this years American Anthology of Short Stories? If I think your story is bad, I think it's bad. And a lot of what is called "entitlement" by these older authors is really that unwillingness to accept an appeal to authority and the default level of prestige associated with those kinds of writings. This isn't directly related, but I see a similar conflict between accusations of cronyism, cliqueishness, and a general cynicism from younger people about the meritocracy of the real world. 

[feelthedarkness]

Things are about to get GRIFTY!

 

https://www.indiegogo.com/projects/lawyers-against-gaming-corruption

 

and it's sister future publication!

 

http://www.goodgamers.us/

[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.

'gamers' have seized upon Jenn's disclaimer as evidence of her corruption. Al Jazeera irresponsibly ran with the image. Jenn Frank has quit.

 

I can't even fucking handle how angry and sad I am. How the fuck are these people real? Are they just going to keep going and going until there's nothing left?

[MrHoatzin]

Some days I really feel like curb stomping MRAs.

 

Some days feel like weeks.

[Gormongous]

I can't even fucking handle how angry and sad I am. How the fuck are these people real? Are they just going to keep going and going until there's nothing left?

 

The really baffling thing for me, because my brain has somehow adjusted to the state of the world where this is now called out constantly, is that her attacker claims that she's pretending to be impartial when talking about an acquaintance of hers and that makes it corruption. Did he read the article? Jenn wears her position and connections in the industry on her sleeve. It's an opinion piece, there's literally no attempt at deception there. But presumably, and I say presumably because I have no idea how the minds of these people who attack her actually work, having any personal acquaintance with the victims of these hate crimes (which, in the case of this attack on Jenn, involves a single Twitter exchange where she shows compassion and respect for Quinn) disqualifies someone from having a publishable opinion on them. Only the components of the internet hate machine, who don't know Quinn and Sarkeesian and hardly consider them to be people in the full sense of the word, are removed enough from them to be able to provide comment.

 

Ugh, this is the same damn thing I post with every twist and turn, really. It's not about corruption at all and everyone knows it. It's about hate against women, and the seemingly sincere belief of the haters that the only voices that should be allowed are ones that agree with them.

[Denial]

Well, the tiny crack through which the harassers squeezed their body, Tooms-like, was that initially she mentioned her friendship with ZQ in the first draft, but it was cut, and the Guardian's lawyers told her not to worry, and that for an opinion piece not focussed on ZQ that wasn't a material disclosure.

 

So, to be clear, the lawyers of one of the most respected newspapers in the world, which already has its own code of ethics, were considered not to be sufficiently expert on disclosure or journalistic ethics, and a woman was hounded out of writing

 

Genius.

[feelthedarkness]

I guess video games are officially the new front of America's cultural revolution where we start purging the intellectuals.

 

I don't believe in conspiracy, but I think this is deliberate in it's attempt to prevent women and allies from writing about other women. 

 

Also, like Gorm, I just have the same thoughts over and over. That if merely knowing or believing in the work of a friend is a sign of corruption the picture that paints of these people's lives is BLEAK.

[juv3nal]

jesus fucking christ. so much stupid.