Support NeoGAF

[GatticusFinch]

Not unexpected.
Gawker as a whole is a mess in this regard. The iPhone 4 leak incident with Gizmodo a few years ago for example, they took possession of a 'stolen' prerelease model that someone sold to them and then broke the news about it. It's such a tabloid-like mentality. Kotaku isn't much different. I used to read them often (like, years ago), but now I avoid them. Even if they have decent articles from time to time, and a good review system.

How about when those "real journalists" at Gizmodo got banned for life from CES for using TV-B-Gone remotes to fuck up presentations being made, and then called what they were doing "civil disobedience" as if they were Rosa Parks?

http://gizmodo.com/344447/giz-banned-for-life-and-loving-it-on-pranks-and-civil-disobedience-at-ces

Gawker is awful. Deadspin was the only last Gawker site I visited and that's pretty much stopped since everything lately is just cross-posted bullshit from other Gawker sites.

 

[BennyBlanco]

Haven't visited Kotaku in years but they must be doing something right if they're pissing off publishers.

 

[JumpJeff84]

I don't know what Assassin's Creed Liberty is, but assuming you're talking about Victory, I believe this is one of the false rumors Ubisoft sent around to dissuade their employees from leaking. The person who leaked me the Victory video is doing just fine.

I've also heard that a manager at one of Bethesda's studios told the devs there that he had a friend in Kotaku upper management who would tell him the names of anyone who talked to us about anything. This is nonsense, of course. Typical video game industry scare tactics.

Sorry, Victory is what I meant.

I have a close friend who's a coder on the game. He told me personally that the management found out who leaked the game, sent out a scathing company-wide email, and made a big show about firing the guy and pressing charges as a warning. Could be that it was all BS by the management, my friend isn't the type to make shit up just for the hell of it.

 

[cackhyena]

The article says otherwise:

You weren't cut off for your harsh reviews or revealing some terrible secret about working conditions or such.
You were cut off for publishing leaks about upcoming games. That's not "real reporting" that's just posting information that was obtained by questionable means (breaking NDAs and such) for the sole purpose of getting more views. It didn't reveal anything that would improve the gaming industry, it's just for clicks.
Leaking pre-release game information is not serving your readers - that's what reviews and critiques are. These kind of leaks are just serving yourself.

No. Responsible journalists decide what should and what shouldn't be published based on the importance and content of the leaked information. A responsible journalist doesn't just publish every piece of secret information that falls into his hands.
If you got a leak about something bad or revolutionary happening in the games industry - of course you should publish it without the company's permission. But this is not even remotely the case here.
So please explain to me what was the ethical justification in publishing those specific leaks. What was so important in those leaks that you had to publish them despite knowing that it shouldn't be public yet.
Not all leaks are equal and the ones mentioned in the article aren't some groundbreaking reveals. You just decided to screw over those publishers for more viewers. That's absolutely fine - it's your choice. But don't come crying later when those publishers no longer want to cooperate with you.
If it was about blacklisting for bad reviews (like Jim Sterling) or revealing some horrible working conditions than I would agree with you. But it's not.

Damn

 

[Tecnniqe]

Its funny how games industry leaks and whatnot works different from anything else.

Pretty sure you would want leaks about government.
Does that mean the government should jail the press who run with leaks?
Of course its not the same scenario, as gov. leaks could be more damaging, but none the less, its probably information you should have/want.

I like their leaks, more so than other outlets "buddy buddy" with devs and publishers.

 

[L Thammy]

Comment of the thread.

This reminds me, does someone have that Shame Cycle Vs. Hype Cycle image? There's nothing that sums up "ethics in game journalism" better in my mind (in that the Gators were actively trying to discourage ethics).

 

[Death Metalist]

Why am I not surprised? This industry has always been fucking nuts.

Some of the posts in this thread my goodness. There has to be employees from some major AAA publishers in here

You can bet your ass on that.

 

[Obliterator]

Some of the posts in this thread my goodness. There has to be employees from some major AAA publishers in here

 

[benny_a]

Very saddened by a lot of the responses in this thread.

Ubisoft blacklisted Ziff in 2007 over a what they felt like was a poor AC1 review.

 

[ultron87]

Ironically the one time it's actually about ethics in video game journalism people act like it's not.

The attempts at spinning this article over on the Gamergate subreddit are pretty entertaining.

 

[Acerac]

Anything that hurts Gawker is cool with me.

This is a mindset that I don't understand.

It seems shortsighted as hell.

 

[Morrigan Stark]

I find if oh so hilariously ironic that people are actally NOT siding with Kotaku, on NEO FUCKING GAF, of all places.

This site is a haven for truthfacts and inside leaking. It is one of the main draws, and those leaker threads bring this place to it's knees sometimes.

I swear, people are conditioned to reject things and argue just for the sake of arguing. Devils advocate syndrome is hardwired.

I know right. Boggles the mind.

Thanks for calling me an idiot, guy.

If they're not partners then why would they give Kotaku ANYTHING? Press kits? Comments on stories? Flying them out to play a game early? Free early games? They're not partners, they don't own them anything.

It's weird that you equate paid travels with responding to requests for comments, but whatever; if game journalism sites are "partners" with companies, why don't every story on IGN, Gamespot, etc. show a disclaimer saying "THIS STORY PAID FOR BY OUR PARTNER, UBISOFT INC.", hmmm?

Woof.

Just responding to the bold part, but these email legal disclaimers are complete bullshit and not legally enforceable. It's just scare language.

http://apps.americanbar.org/litigati...ally-work.html

I am not remotely surprised at that, haha. I always ignore these disclaimers anyway, they're the iTunes license agreement of email signatures.

I gotta agree with this. For me it would depend on what they got blacklisted for. For bad reviews or calling out bad practices? Yeah good on them and fuck the publishers. For leaking a game years before it is finished? Well, I honestly am not going to be mad at kotaku for it, that's their right but I don't think the publisher is being unreasonable either in deciding to blacklist you which really is their only recourse and way to encourage you not to do that. And I think their reasons for why not wanting the game to be leaked yet is reasonable.

lol, how is it so? I would imagine that Kotaku got the leaked information from an insider at the company, and that insider wouldn't give two shits about the blacklisting... considering they were a leaker in the first place. That doesn't make any sense. If anything, being blacklisted might just make Kotaku go "oh yeah, well fuck you then" to the company even more (not that I'm saying they'd be that petty, but they sure as hell won't go "oh noes we're blacklisted now, let me hesitate before leaking shit or not...").

What does being "blacklisted" mean?

You could try reading the article.

 

[Black_Red]

I'm ok with this. I mean, if Kotaku want to act as real journalism then they can't also expect a friendly relationship with the publishrers. (Just like how some famous people dont give interviews to certain channels).

I mean, what Kotaku did was right (posting the story) but now Bethesda is on his right to not help kotaku get more clicks and if kotaku want more bethesda stories, they'll need to keep acting like real jorunalists,

(It would be different if they were "blacklisted" because of a bad review, but that isn't the case)

 

[DrROBschiz]

Wow, this is something. It gets me really thinking about how it is to run or work in games journalism.

The games media, coverage, and all its bits and pieces is a very crowded and diverse space

Im not sure what value the journalism part of it holds other than to get some cool inside looks at how games are made the process.

Otherwise i find the hit pieces mostly inconsequential since games ARE an entertainment product and can easily be ignored without consequence.

Not to mention how crowded the other end (games creation) is. I mean.. seriously... what is the driving force that dintinguishes value in Games media?

Can an outlet really stay ahead in this competitive space by playing the "integrity" "Stick it to the man" "rebel card"

I know big companies are the big bad in out world but the net damage caused by malpractice of an games company compared to say... an oil company...


Sorry you guys can ignore me unless something in my jarbled mess of a post resonates

 

[tebunker]

Why haven't they stopped covering Bethesda and Ubisoft's games?

Because it makes them money and because they aren't petty like the publishers.

It's called catering to your market. It's not rocket science.

On another note I'd love to see the amount of people who are okay with a site being blacklisted matched against those who get "outraged" when a game is censored.

Cause blacklisting is a form of censorship. Trying to mold the message in such a way that you have control over and not allowing for dissenting opinions is a form of censoring. It's not institutional censorship or classically defined but it sure is in the same spirit and people should not want companies to act this way.

Granted I think it's silly to expect anything else from businesses that sell products. Games are entertainment products and companies will do anything they can to control the message and sell more product.

 

[muteki]

Well this thread turned out to be much more entertaining than anticipated...

 

[Maztorre]

Euhm no. The movie industry for example does what it wants. I can be wrong, but I can recall that Disney isn't doing a press viewing of Star Wars.
Again, no one is forcing the press to anything. If you don't like the terms Ubisoft enforces, then don't follow them. It's that easy.

Wrong. What Disney is doing with Star Wars is not playing any advance press screenings ahead of release. In the case of Star Wars it's related to preventing the reveal of spoilers, but in general studios will occasionally not hold any press screenings if they are not confident in a films quality and want to release ahead of reviews being published.

This differs from Bethesda/Ubisoft because they are selectively blacklisting outlets that take any actions they view as negative towards their message, and rewarding those who play it safe (i.e. don't do their jobs) with privileged access. Film studios do not engage in this kind of bullshit (in Disney's case there were set photos, concept art, leaked plot outlines, all the usual fare ahead of Star Wars but they have not taken action against websites for publishing or reporting on these).

 

[JumpCancel]

If you give a game anything other than positive reception or attention, you are to be avoided.

Oh games industry.

 

[Azuran]

Video game journalism continues to be an utter joke when publishers have all the power in the relationship. I'm honestly not surprised there's a defense force here for that.

 

[Kintaro]

"Never publish negative things about devs ever."

The fucked up part is that so many sites agree with you.

Can you point to where I said that? No? You'll do well in today's journalism.

Publish what you want. They're going to keep on keeping on. Which is exactly what they should be doing. Their job. But sooner or later, your access may get cut off because of what you wrote. If you're not okay with that, you're a shitty journalist.

All I'm saying is, if this is because of their leaks and those leaks cost the publishers a lot of money? Then it's no surprise they got cut off. It certainly hasn't stopped Kotaku from covering their games because THEY know they need to do so because the games are new, hot and they need to make money.

 

[NormalFish]

Seems to be a common misconception in this thread. Also, I shouldn't have called it a crime. No one is doing jail time for it- my bad there for using the wrong wording. It's open to legal action though.

Leaking internal, confidential information for a business has potential affects on stock prices, R&D, release schedules, public perception, etc. etc. There's a reason laws are there to protect this from happening. It's going to be very bad for the person leaking it, but it would likely only have legal implication for the media if there were damages as a result.

Do you have like... Anything more than your own words to back this? Goes against all my preconceived notions on the subject.

 

[Stallion Dan]

I don't see what is wrong with blacklisting.

If a person or company is trashing you, even for legit reasons, or they are leaking stuff that could affect your bottom line, why the fuck are you going to stay on good terms with them?

 

[silvermember]

People don't like it when you reveal their secrets to the world. News at 11.

I know right, how dare Kotaku do actual journalism. It is not Kotaku's job to care if they a company's secrets are revealed, it is the company's job to prevent it. Journalism only works if companies are game journalist are not buddy.

I don't see what is wrong with blacklisting.

If a person or company is trashing you, even for legit reasons, or they are leaking stuff that could affect your bottom line, why the fuck are you going to stay on good terms with them?

There is nothing wrong with a company blacklisting you. It however does show that the current system for video game "journalism" in which companies and "journalist" works is not healthy for US, the consumer. Just imagine if every news was simply a copy and paste of the press release, written by the government.

 

[Fjordson]

So is Kotaku being blacklisted for criticism / negative articles or leaks? Reading two different things in here

 

[DeepEnigma]

I like Kotaku for the most part. I think folks like Stephen and Jason are great people and I love reading their pieces, but on the same token, I'm looking at this both ways and playing devil's advocate for the sake of it. Going ahead and publishing excerpts from a script of a project still in development, or spoiling a stage announcement a half hour or a few days before its going be announced, are legitimate reasons to be fairly upset in my opinion.

There is another type of leak, however. These are leaks where they're informing the consumer about practices or subversion a group of people are trying to get away with.

If Bethesda comes out & lies to consumers that Arkane is not working on Prey 2, when that is in-fact what they are doing, then I do think you can and should run that story. You're setting the record straight for the consumer. Running a story about how the OS for a console is actually not working properly behind the scenes, or how the internal machinations of how a publisher feels for its consumers is something you should report on. Or hell, reporting on negative business practices that go on is perfectly fine. That should be encouraged.

These blacklists don't seem to arise from any sort of story of ethical or moral violations from Bethesda or Ubisoft though. Has Bungie blacklisted them for running that article a month ago about how difficult stuff was/has been on Destiny? From what I know Bungie likes Kotaku, or at least Jason. Did EA blacklist them for continuously running stories on the poor release state some of their games were in in recent years, or how bad the work conditions have been within EA studios at times? No, they haven't. Did Sony around the time of the PS4 unveil? No.

From devs that I've talked to, there is a reason why publishers and developers want secrecy around their projects - when they show something/anything to the public, those things BECOME promises, even if its still in development, even if its non-final, even if its early. They have to deliver after that point. And its been something that has bitten quite a few devs in the ass in the past.

So yes, devs have certainly become more reclusive, but with admittedly good reason. Their dev times have become way, way longer, which makes the spoiling of surprises even more of punch to the face than many realize. It's one thing for an insider to go on a forum and say a few details on a game or say someone they know that knows this one thing is in development said a thing, and entirely another when you are showing excerpts from a leaked script, or gameplay footage/assets of a game that doesn't even exist yet. Trust me, I WISH publishers and studios were more transparent in their development process more than anyone. 100%. But I also at least see where they're coming from as well.

That's my two cents anyway...

Great post with some solid points as well.

 

[jschreier]

Sorry, Victory is what I meant.

I have a close friend who's a coder on the game. He told me personally that the management found out who leaked the game, sent out a scathing company-wide email, and made a big show about firing the guy and pressing charges as a warning. Could be that it was all BS by the management, my friend isn't the type to make shit up just for the hell of it.

It's true that Ubi's management said all that, but AFAIK it was a scare tactic. The person who leaked me the video was not fired.

 

[Patrick Klepek]

Very saddened by a lot of the responses in this thread.

Ubisoft blacklisted Ziff in 2007 over a what they felt like was a poor AC1 review.

My story about that was killed by Ziff management. Wish I had kept a copy around.

 

[WanderingWind]

A couple of things worry me in this thread. Some folks seem to have zero idea what journalism entails. It is not just regurgitating press releases at the whim of corporate entities. If Kotaku - or any site that deigns itself a "journalism " site - gets verifiable or sourced information, they will usually run it.

There are some news embargos that happen in every form of press, but they're usually either for stories still developing necessary facts or between two friendly parties, like a reporter that works closely with a government agency. But they're not a matter of course like they are in the video game industry.

It is not against some nebulous set of laws, morals or ethics for reporters to report facts. It is very much the exact reason why journalism as a field exists and it's exactly why in America the 4th estate is constitutionally protected. We, as readers, shouldn't be beholden to what information corporations drip feed us.

We should expect this behavior, no fuck it, we should be demanding this behavior from any person who claims they are a "journalist." Your personal feelings on Kotaku as a site are wholly irrelevant. So is the fact that any reporter can work around a blacklisting. Those aren't the issues here.

Yes, it's just video games and not breaking, world-shaking news. But we can't have it both ways, folks. You either want gaming journalism to grow the hell up - in which case, this is exactly what you're asking for, or you're content with the status quo set in years past.

 

[Marvel]

How very childish.

 

[killroy87]

The article says otherwise:

You weren't cut off for your harsh reviews or revealing some terrible secret about working conditions or such.
You were cut off for publishing leaks about upcoming games. That's not "real reporting" that's just posting information that was obtained by questionable means (breaking NDAs and such) for the sole purpose of getting more views. It didn't reveal anything that would improve the gaming industry, it's just for clicks.
Leaking pre-release game information is not serving your readers - that's what reviews and critiques are. These kind of leaks are just serving yourself.

No. Responsible journalists decide what should and what shouldn't be published based on the importance and content of the leaked information. A responsible journalist doesn't just publish every piece of secret information that falls into his hands.
If you got a leak about something bad or revolutionary happening in the games industry - of course you should publish it without the company's permission. But this is not even remotely the case here.
So please explain to me what was the ethical justification in publishing those specific leaks. What was so important in those leaks that you had to publish them despite knowing that it shouldn't be public yet.
Not all leaks are equal and the ones mentioned in the article aren't some groundbreaking reveals. You just decided to screw over those publishers for more viewers. That's absolutely fine - it's your choice. But don't come crying later when those publishers no longer want to cooperate with you.
If it was about blacklisting for bad reviews (like Jim Sterling) or revealing some horrible working conditions than I would agree with you. But it's not.

Great post

 

[Gentleman Jack]

That.... doesn't explain anything? What are you even talking about?

You asked why they're even bringing up the blacklisting. The answer is in the quoted passage: readers asked them why Totilo didn't review the new AC game.

I mean, in fairness to your post, you asked them why they 'bitched about the blacklist,' but I can only assume you were exaggerating their response for effect. This isn't Totilo bitching, this is him responding to reader reaction to the recent coverage of games from those two publishers.

 

[DrROBschiz]

Video game journalism continues to be an utter joke when publishers have all the power in the relationship. I'm honestly not surprised there's a defense force here for that.

More like its mostly lacking in consequence in an entertainment industry

Not to those who are invested and care deeply about the little things mind you

I feel like the Kotaku audience will reamin unphased by this news and continue to support them

 

[Doug Heffernan]

I'm so sorry so many of you have been personally offended/hurt by this games journalism site.

Come on guys, quit being petty. Drive by Kotaku hate is boring and unproductive.

Just a theory, but perhaps the reason that these people hate games journalism is due to a deep-rooted jealousy that game journalists get to play games for a living and they don't.

 

[Ekai]

The attempts at spinning this article over on the Gamergate subreddit are pretty entertaining.

I'd visit KotakuInAction but my computer will probably get 20 + viruses if I even start to type the link.

 

[Demoskinos]

Ironically the one time it's actually about ethics in video game journalism people act like it's not.

The realest of talk.

 

[Morrigan Stark]

It's true that Ubi's management said all that, but AFAIK it was a scare tactic. The person who leaked me the video was not fired.

If that's the case... isn't this a case of outright lying? 'Cause, well, damn, I'd say this warrants its own article. Fuck Ubisoft.

 

[Geek]

That's rich coming from Polygon.

OK

 

[CaptainZombie]

"No comment," or no response at all, is actually standard fare in most journalism. Journalists get ignored and denied way more often than they get full access. That's standard fare.



This is exactly the correct approach to take. You just keep going on.

Over the years I've been blacklisted on-and-off by various PR teams at various companies and the best reply is to just keep doing the job. Eventually teams change and companies change their tune.

It's just part of the job.

Same has happened to me. I have learned over the years as the teams change in a PR group where you have been blacklisted or just semi-ignored will start sending product out to you for review.

 

[JumpJeff84]

It's true that Ubi's management said all that, but AFAIK it was a scare tactic. The person who leaked me the video was not fired.

Cool, thanks for the clarification. Must be crazy trying to manage a company as large as Ubi. The management must do a lot of 'scare tactic' type stuff to try and keep everyone in line. I'd love to see that email the management sent out....

 

[Kacho]

Yeah, I can understand why they would do that. I forgot you all had leaked the Fallout 4 Boston location a while back.

Just keep doing what you're doing, guys.

 

[JoduanER2]

The article says otherwise:

You weren't cut off for your harsh reviews or revealing some terrible secret about working conditions or such.
You were cut off for publishing leaks about upcoming games. That's not "real reporting" that's just posting information that was obtained by questionable means (breaking NDAs and such) for the sole purpose of getting more views. It didn't reveal anything that would improve the gaming industry, it's just for clicks.
Leaking pre-release game information is not serving your readers - that's what reviews and critiques are. These kind of leaks are just serving yourself.

No. Responsible journalists decide what should and what shouldn't be published based on the importance and content of the leaked information. A responsible journalist doesn't just publish every piece of secret information that falls into his hands.
If you got a leak about something bad or revolutionary happening in the games industry - of course you should publish it without the company's permission. But this is not even remotely the case here.
So please explain to me what was the ethical justification in publishing those specific leaks. What was so important in those leaks that you had to publish them despite knowing that it shouldn't be public yet.
Not all leaks are equal and the ones mentioned in the article aren't some groundbreaking reveals. You just decided to screw over those publishers for more viewers. That's absolutely fine - it's your choice. But don't come crying later when those publishers no longer want to cooperate with you.
If it was about blacklisting for bad reviews (like Jim Sterling) or revealing some horrible working conditions than I would agree with you. But it's not.

Exactly, they are just leaking information for their sake, they are not leaking something that could prevent people from buying a game in a shitty state

 

[Nibel]

The amount of people in this thread siding with multi-million dollar companies whose multi-million dollar AAA games still generate multi-million dollars of revenue despite being leaked a year or two beforehand is not shocking - it's fucking sad.

The secrecy even in the face of the most exposing leaks is ridiculous in this day and age. They want you to watch shitty press conferences where they announce their games with shady trailers to build the maximum amount of hype - hype based on pitches and not off substance.

Salute to Kotaku and its writers for giving a fuck about journalism that is more than just sitting on publisher's laps' and writing everything down they get whispered in their ears.

 

[MayMay]

The article says otherwise:

You weren't cut off for your harsh reviews or revealing some terrible secret about working conditions or such.
You were cut off for publishing leaks about upcoming games. That's not "real reporting" that's just posting information that was obtained by questionable means (breaking NDAs and such) for the sole purpose of getting more views. It didn't reveal anything that would improve the gaming industry, it's just for clicks.
Leaking pre-release game information is not serving your readers - that's what reviews and critiques are. These kind of leaks are just serving yourself.

No. Responsible journalists decide what should and what shouldn't be published based on the importance and content of the leaked information. A responsible journalist doesn't just publish every piece of secret information that falls into his hands.
If you got a leak about something bad or revolutionary happening in the games industry - of course you should publish it without the company's permission. But this is not even remotely the case here.
So please explain to me what was the ethical justification in publishing those specific leaks. What was so important in those leaks that you had to publish them despite knowing that it shouldn't be public yet.
Not all leaks are equal and the ones mentioned in the article aren't some groundbreaking reveals. You just decided to screw over those publishers for more viewers. That's absolutely fine - it's your choice. But don't come crying later when those publishers no longer want to cooperate with you.
If it was about blacklisting for bad reviews (like Jim Sterling) or revealing some horrible working conditions than I would agree with you. But it's not.

Yeap, that's it.

 

[Visualante2]

Ubisoft were like this with 1UP back in the day. I guessed it was related to the original Assassin's Creed coverage but I could be way off. I don't expect them to change if they've been this way for at least the best part of a decade.

 

[Pathfinder]

Anything that hurts Gawker is cool with me.

It's not just hurting Gawker though. It's setting a bad precedent.

You should expand your horizons, son. Look past your bias.

 

[jschreier]

I would recommend that a lot of the people posting in this thread actually read the entire article instead of just the excerpt. Specifically this part:

Some will think about all of this only in terms of numbers, focusing on the hundreds of thousands of pageviews we’ve gotten for our stories about leaked game announcements. Those stories have indeed done well. They are nevertheless a small part of what we do, and not something to which we devote much journalistic energy. I prefer to marshal our reporting to tell readers things they’ll otherwise never know or that they need to know sooner—the underpowered nature of upcoming hardware, the plight of fired game developers, the reason a high-profile game was released in rough shape.

At times, though, we’ll stumble on information about a new, unannounced game or, more often, will find some unsolicited information in our inbox. The news value to such leaks is often exceedingly obvious in what it says about the state of a game, a franchise, a console or a company. In such moments, 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.

Too many big game publishers cling to an irrational expectation of secrecy and are rankled when the press shows them how unrealistic they’re being. There will always be a clash between independent reporters and those seek to control information, but many of these companies appear to believe that it is actually possible in 2015 for hundreds of people to work dozens of months on a video game and for no information about the project to seep out. They appear to believe that the general public will not find out about these games until their marketing plans say it’s time. They operate with the assumption that the press will not upend these plans, and should the press defy their assumption, they bring down the hammer. We make our own judgments about what information best serves the news value of a story, and what our readers would prefer not to know—which is why, for example, we omitted key plot details from the Fallout 4 scripts that were leaked to us. We keep covering these companies’ games, of course. Readers expect that. Millions of people still read our stories about them. The companies just leave themselves a little more out of the equation.

 

[thabiz]

Some of the posts in this thread my goodness. There has to be employees from some major AAA publishers in here

My thoughts most days on gaf.

 

[Q_A]

This is a mindset that I don't understand.

It seems shortsighted as hell.

Ethics in journalism! Win the battle lose the war. Short sighted is the way to go!

 

[Fantastapotamus]

Imagine if you were, say, in a band. You did an interview with Rolling Stone, and they totally took things you said out of context and smeared you, or otherwise wrote stuff you personally found unflattering or hurtful - or maybe even hurt sales of your new album. Two years later, you have a new album coming out, and Rolling Stone asks for an interview -- don't you think it's perfectly fine to refuse them? Isn't that your right? That doesn't 'hurt journalism'.... it's your damn prerogative. Journalists do not have some basic right to interview you, or to get inside information from you... and if you feel burned, you have every right to shut them out from future communication.

Likewise, it's the 'big companies' prerogative in this case.

There is a pretty meaningfull difference between "Posting stuff they don't want you to post" and "Make shit up, smear you and insult you"

To be clear, I'm not standing with Ubi or Beth on this either. It goes without saying that it's a dick move, but again, they blacklisted Kotaku for mildly ruining the party and not for publishing some hard facts that changed our perception of the industry for the worse.

This is a distinction people need to make.

I don't read Kotaku cause 75% of the site is trash from Ashcraft. I still think this is an incredibly stupid move. Nobody expects you to praise Kotaku into heavens for this. I certainly won't.

 

[BruceLeeRoy]

A couple of things worry me in this thread. Some folks seem to have zero idea what journalism entails. It is not just regurgitating press releases at the whim of corporate entities. If Kotaku - or any site that deigns itself a "journalism " site - gets verifiable or sourced information, they will usually run it.

Bro your on a specialized forum for gaming enthusiasts where the majority of posters don't know anything about the hobby they love so much and your shocked these same people don't know anything about journalism?