"Ethics and Journalistic Integrity"

[Gormongous]

...this shows that we're absolutely right in demanding ethical journalism, even though it's us fucking asshats who caused this problem in the first place, blah blah blah...

 

I've actually seen that argument pop up twice in the brigaded comments of articles reporting on this: #GamerGate has a valid purpose as a honey trap to lure unwary publications into ethical missteps. Both comments (possibly by the same person) insist that, even though photoshopping pictures and spreading rumors via social media is bad, giving those pictures and rumors public coverage is worse, so whatever the assholes and trolls do, it's all good because it catches out even worse assholes and trolls. I really can't even relate to these people anymore.

 

Also, it's wild how #GamerGate apologists flood the comment threads of every goddamn article about them. I can't imagine a much more pathetic existence than getting up every morning and searching the internet for the bad things that people are saying about me and my friends so that I can make a dummy account to browbeat and nitpick those things into nonsense. /r/KotakuInAction might make it easier, but it still must take a depressing amount of time to do.

[Deadpan]

Which is absurd, considering that their main talking point for the first couple of months was "Why aren't media outlets picking up this obvious smear campaign uncritically, boohoo"

 

It's so weird. I turned off the autoblocker recently cause I figured people had probably stopped tweeting at me at this point, but sometimes people I follow poke fun at this mess, and now I once again get to see these weird hate-followers show up, without fault, to let them know that they absolutely disagree with that. This is all that's left I guess, a bunch of internet arguer people and a bunch of actual terrorists.

[Vainamoinen]

I don't imagine anybody outside the group really doubted the connection, but it's still nice to see it laid out so plainly. The weird mind-bending gaters are attempting over this whole thing is really a special kind of maelstrom of shit. No that wasn't us, but also isn't it totally justified, remember that time he made fun of white people, also this shows that we're absolutely right in demanding ethical journalism, even though it's us fucking asshats who caused this problem in the first place, blah blah blah...

 

The ethical course of action, now as ever, would be for the group to advocate for its own abolishment. That penny will never drop, I fear.

 

It's hard to wrap one's mind around the idea that inside the group, people are doubting the connection.

 

Meme-ification is their sole and most liberally used weapon to the point that knowyourmeme.com now is nothing but a political vehicle of gamergate (a damn shame). And while newly emerging, in no way less repulsive memes are universally cheered at in gamergate circles, it's just this single one seasoned little photoshoppery of horrors that's in need of a bit of disassociation with "the movement" because of its sudden popularity with corrupt mainstream media.

 

Like the works of Milo Yiannopoulos and Elizabeth Finnegan, this picture was manufactured to elicit validation from and acceptance in the one and only group that would ever harass the guy who invented the hashtag #stopgamergate2014. And just like Yiannopoulos and Finnegan, an active association with the mob isn't really necessary to identify their core ideology.

 

The photoshopped image is based on gamergate methods and transmits gamergate agenda, hence the maker supports gamergate. Direct logical deduction here. His disassociation with gamergate is nebulous at best while his deeds speak the loudest language imaginable. We don't say gamergate member, the movement doesn't hand out ID cards and badges. The term chosen by the movement is gamergate supporter. That means, support the mob and you're in, folks. No continuous pledge of allegiance necessary.

[eRonin]

Here's some actual ethics in gaming journalism: Kotaku has been blacklisted by Bethesda and Ubisoft for reporting on leaks about these companies. While it may be unethical to jump the gun on reporting sensitive information, I feel that the responsibility is for Bethesda/Ubisoft to maintain a tight ship. I think Jason Schreier is an excellent writer and once the leak was in the wild, accurately reporting its contents and implications is the smarter option than trying to sweep things under the rug.

 

Article here: http://kotaku.com/a-price-of-games-journalism-1743526293

[Ninety-Three]

Here's some actual ethics in gaming journalism: Kotaku has been blacklisted by Bethesda and Ubisoft for reporting on leaks about these companies. While it may be unethical to jump the gun on reporting sensitive information, I feel that the responsibility is for Bethesda/Ubisoft to maintain a tight ship. I think Jason Schreier is an excellent writer and once the leak was in the wild, accurately reporting its contents and implications is the smarter option than trying to sweep things under the rug.

 

It's important to note that these leaks weren't "in the wild", both cases appear to be about individuals privately contacting Kotaku. Bethesda/Ubisoft's strategy here is about intimidation. They're not trying to threaten Kotaku, instead they've made an example of Kotaku and are using it to threaten other news outlets: "Don't report on our leaks, or you get cut off". Given that Kotaku seem to have been the only outlet to report on those stories, the tactic seems pretty effective. There must be at least a few leaks we never heard of because the outlet that got them didn't publish for fear of getting cut off.

 

Jeez, games journalism is a mess.

[Vainamoinen]

Ubi and Beth are shitbags for just cutting kotaku off for years, without comment even.

But that doesn't mean kotaku gets to report on 'leaks' and gets celebrated by 'gamers' for 'whistleblowing'.

 

Totilo writes:

 

[...] it is nearly unfathomable to me that a reporter would sit on true information about what’s really happening in gaming, that we would refrain from telling our readers something because it would mess with a company’s marketing plan.

 

Screenshots, however, aren't "what's really happening in gaming". It's essentially marketing material, so kotaku isn't just messing with a marketing plan – they're using the screenshots for their own marketing. And now they're framing it as some kind of martyr video game age 'muckraker' journalism.

 

And that's just... not OK.

[Twig]

I think it's hilarious to suggest that Kotaku is at all in the wrong here.

 

What, exactly, did they do that's bad? They reported information that they received. And it wasn't just a screenshot, they had other information, too.

[Ninety-Three]

I think it's hilarious to suggest that Kotaku is at all in the wrong here.

 

What, exactly, did they do that's bad? They reported information that they received. And it wasn't just a screenshot, they had other information, too.

 

It's a weird situation where no one's really in the wrong. Kotaku has no obligation to hold back on leaked information they obtain, and Bethesda has no obligation to send preview materials to people who do stuff they don't like. Socially, it was a jerk move to not comment on the cutoff, but they were within their rights to make the business move of cutting Kotaku off.

[Vainamoinen]

It's a weird situation where no one's really in the wrong.

 

I'd rather say: It's a weird situation where no one's really in the right.

 

If there's something wrong in the industry and their info and source is credible (i.e. not Escapist "credible"), sure they can report on that. But the video game press isn't there for the 'scoops' of the new game in the works. That's just silly.

[Twig]

It's a weird situation where no one's really in the wrong.

 

Yep, I would agree with this entirely.

[Twig]

I'd rather say: It's a weird situation where no one's really in the right.

 

If there's something wrong in the industry and their info and source is credible (i.e. not Escapist "credible"), sure they can report on that. But the video game press isn't there for the 'scoops' of the new game in the works. That's just silly.

So, what...?

 

Video games press exists to appease developers and publishers?

 

Or...?

 

What exactly are you suggesting their purpose is? Are they only for reviews? Are they only for previews provided they're officially supported previews, i.e. publisher-held preview events? If not that, then what? Where is your line on what is and is not "appropriate" for an entity that is wholly separate from the publisher itself to report on in regards to that publisher?

[twmac]

What is a game?

 

Sorry.

[Griddlelol]

My reaction has more been towards how Kotaku are acting like noble martyrs of video games.

They basically leaked announcements of games, and the publishers are upset. It's not exactly something to be proud of, nor is it something to be ashamed of. Yet they seem to be pushing the idea that because they write hard hitting stories, publishers don't like them, but those that have black listed them did it over leaked announcements...

[Twig]

The published an article explaining what happened because people were asking about their Fallout 4 review.

 

That's it.

 

They aren't acting like martyrs. The article was an informational one.

 

That's it.

[Deadpan]

but they were within their rights to make the business move of cutting Kotaku off.

 

Perhaps, but it's entirely possible for perfectly legal business practices to still be morally or socially reprehensible, see also that business bro who raised the price of that cancer medication by about a billion percent. So even though it's understandable that these companies want to control the flow of information around their products, we don't therefore need to accept this kind of bullying and favoritism as a necessary consequence, especially considering our own interests are better served by a strong press apparatus. Publishers want sites to write what they want, sites want to write what they themselves feel like writing, and video game consumers at large should want sites to get to do so without repercussions (except large amounts of them have absurdly become convinced that PR material is divine scripture that becomes corrupted when it is handed down by mere mortal games journalists).

 

What is also true, however, is that the exact incidents that caused this blacklisting were not terribly subversive of the system in themselves. It may not have happened on the schedules of Ubisoft and Bethesda, but these kinds of leaks typically still end up serving the kind of hype build-up these companies want to instigate. On very rare occasions, this kind of information is used to call into question the promises that have been made in advance, in most cases readers end up treating it as preview material they simply got their hands on a little earlier than expected. So in publishing these, Kotaku was still technically playing the hype game publishers want them to play, where the only winning move is to consider not talking about a big game just because it's big. And still, they were simultaneously daring to step out of line, something we should applaud them for, even while recognizing they did it for cheap clicks.

 

On the other, other side of things, once Bethesda and Ubisoft did blacklist them, they inadvertently turned them into the journalistic paragons Totilo makes them out to be, When you talk about this whole situation, you should not only consider the pieces that caused the blacklisting, but all the writing they did on these games since being cut off as fallout (hehe) to the original decision.

[Henroid]

Now now, Gamergate is about ethics in video games journalism, not ethics in video games business.

[Vainamoinen]

What exactly are you suggesting their purpose is?

 

They're reporting on games and games culture. That means a whole lot of things, and I'm not drawing lots of random lines in the sand for them. It's obviously hard enough for them to find purpose at the present time of cultural war.

 

My only 'line' here is clear enough. If they need an inside source in order to gain information and write articles, it'd better be coverage about something illegal or otherwise really troubling going on. Something the public actually needs to know. Their sources violate their non-disclosure agreement, risking to never work in the industry again, and for what? For kotaku to be the first to report on the next Assassin's Creed, really?

 

...and then brazenly sending an email to Ubisoft asking them for a time frame and platforms for their decidedly unannounced game? "Tehehe, we have some great footage here, care to comment?"

 

That's just far too yellow pressy for me.

 

If a company like Konami treats their employees like living shit, I really want to hear about it. And the company needs to own up to their behaviour. But if kotaku fucks up a million dollar Ubisoft marketing campaign for their own glorification? Thanks, but no thanks.

 

(Mind you: There are other segments of the article where I'd agree with kotaku's publication of the info at hand, but Assassin's Creed is kind of their central example for Ubisoft's embargo. I still don't agree with the way Ubisoft handled things here! It was frankly immature.)

 

 

 

What is also true, however, is that the exact incidents that caused this blacklisting were not terribly subversive of the system in themselves. It may not have happened on the schedules of Ubisoft and Bethesda, but these kinds of leaks typically still end up serving the kind of hype build-up these companies want to instigate.

 

You're right, and maybe kotaku didn't exactly 'fuck up' Ubisoft's marketing plan. As I said before, kotaku published marketing material ahead of the time it was supposed to be published. This control should still have been Ubisoft's, really. There was no reason to wrench this control out of their hands.

[Griddlelol]

The published an article explaining what happened because people were asking about their Fallout 4 review.

 

That's it.

 

They aren't acting like martyrs. The article was an informational one.

 

That's it.

 

Ok. Maybe we read different articles. 

[Twig]

My only 'line' here is clear enough. If they need an inside source in order to gain information and write articles, it'd better be coverage about something illegal or otherwise really troubling going on. Something the public actually needs to know.

 

Why?

[Ninety-Three]

 

My only 'line' here is clear enough. If they need an inside source in order to gain information and write articles, it'd better be coverage about something illegal or otherwise really troubling going on. Something the public actually needs to know.

 

Why?

 

Because the inside source is almost certainly violating an NDA or other similar agreement, and it's kind of sketchy for Kotaku to enable a leaker who wants to broadcast information in contravention of an NDA?

[Vainamoinen]

Because the inside source is almost certainly violating an NDA or other similar agreement, and it's kind of sketchy for Kotaku to enable a leaker who wants to broadcast information in contravention of an NDA?

 

That, for example.

 

I find this is a crude posture from kotaku, wannabe rogue and Robin Hood for the consumer, pretending that the very real interdependency between game journalism and the game industry doesn't exist. If game journalists break the non enforcable laws of the trade – like review embargos – heck, what do they expect?

 

Pissing on the game industry (the advocacy of which game journalism was literally born out of) always comes with a great risk. There should be a damn good reason for taking that risk, because of course these reports burn bridges necessary to survival. If a developer releases a sub par product to the public, that's a good reason for a burning bridge. Verified knowledge of immoral and illegal processes in the company, that's a damn good reason to make a really big dent into the relationship to a developer.

 

"We have just gotten game footage no one else has", that's a joke of a reason.

[Twig]

They aren't getting any credit, besides personal vindication, I suppose. But no one but the source and Kotaku knows.

 

And... why does that mean Kotaku shouldn't report on it? You can (and should!) argue that the person doing the leaking is in the wrong, this I will absolutely and always agree with. But Kotaku's in the clear on this.

[Zeusthecat]

If an employee under NDA leaks a thing to you and you are a video game website that makes its money reporting on video game news, why would you not report on that? For one, it is a pretty guaranteed way to get a lot of clicks which will make you more money, and for two if an employee is trying to leak something, it is highly improbable that you not reporting on it will prevent it from getting out. Are these NDA'd employees really going to just say "Oh, Kotaku didn't want to publish the info I leaked? I guess I'll just keep it quiet then!".

 

Seeing how they have reported on some of those leaks over the years, I think in the end they are doing more of a service in providing context around those leaks and treating it with some level of professionalism (i.e. acknowledging something is super early in development or maybe trying to postulate on why a thing maybe looks disappointing or whatever) instead of just ending up with a shitshow where the information gets out anyways and the rest of the non-journalist internet mob disseminates and vomits all over all of the information.

 

Kotaku still has their share of shitty journalism but I think them reporting on these leaks ultimately works more in the favor of the people trying to keep it secret than against them.

[Vainamoinen]

"Here's the manuscript for the next Harry Potter we've gotten our hands on, but don't forget it's all preliminary and may still change. We've asked the publisher for further detail but have somehow not heard back from him".

 

Okay, I concede that's a massive exaggeration. But by kotaku logic, still ethical. It's leaked, it's real, it's game, our readers want it, why not.

[Zeusthecat]

"Here's the manuscript for the next Harry Potter we've gotten our hands on, but don't forget it's all preliminary and may still change".

 

Okay, I concede that's a massive exaggeration. But by kotaku logic, still ethical. It's leaked, it's real, it's game, why not.

 

Do you think the better alternative is to wait until it is leaked anyways and then report on it? Stay entirely silent no matter what unless you've been given permission to report on it?