BlackListed

GrumbleGrump

New member
Oct 14, 2014
387
0
0
(...)it's true that Kotaku is also one of the few gaming sites with the connections, sources and clout to produce actual investigative journalism as opposed to traditional enthusiast press-release regurgitation.
This is the only important point in my opinion. It is also incredibly depressing.
 

Gatlank

New member
Aug 26, 2014
190
0
0
Defective_Detective said:
Gatlank said:
Defective_Detective said:
dirtysteve said:
Defective_Detective said:
The Kush Snickerer said:
That's the grave Kotaku dug when they decided to leak info out early, obviously.
You can't expect to be in a companies back pocket while simultaneously fucking them in the ass for clicks.
I'm sorry, but exactly what kind of relationship are you expecting Kotaku to have with publishers?

Are you saying it's completely acceptable for a company to blacklist journalists for unfavourable coverage?

There leads a very dangerous road...
Again, it's not really a blacklist, as it's individual companies making choices, not colluding.

You think Kotaku don't do the same? They pick and choose who they cover, often their good mates.
It's still blacklisting. It's individual companies making the choice to blacklist a gaming outlet.

And of course Kotaku pick and choose who and what they cover, but that's because they are not super-human. There are so many games being released these days that it is *physically impossible* for a review desk of maybe a dozen people to review everything that comes out. So they have to prioritize what they think will be of most value to their readership.

Bethesda and Ubisoft's behaviour is not even comparable. They are trying to control and denude a popular gaming press outlet and their readership by refusing access necessary for Kotaku to create coverage for their games.
Show me the blacklist.
As far as everyone nows this wasn't a joint effort to be called a blacklist.
Those companies decided they wouldn't waste more of their time with Kotaku and they aren't banned from reviewing their games (they now will have to buy them) has for interviews they are in their right to decide which media outlet can or cannot interview them.
What the heck are you even talking about? "Show me the blacklist"?

We're not arguing over whether or not Ubisoft and Bethesda have or have not blacklisted them. You even admit that they're refusing Kotaku press access. Right there! In bold

It is completely legal for Bethesda and Ubisoft to choose who they do and do not talk to. That does not make it *right*.

Such actions hurt consumers by setting a precedent that if you are a gaming press outlet or Youtuber that does not "play ball" by probing too deeply into developer affairs, you will be refused press access, which ultimately hurts that outlet with a loss in readership since they won't be able to review games in time for release day.
If Kotaku is so "popular" like you said then it's their loss.
It's in their right to refuse who or when should get interviews and those actions wont hurt consumers because *drum roll* there's more gaming media outlets out there.
One final note neither Bethesda or Ubisoft need to ensure a gaming outlet survival. It's just not their duty.
Kotaku squandered all good will making controversy and guess what!
They can ignore them, it's in their right and they are not wrong to ignore someone who steps over them to get clicks.
If they banned Kotaku from reviewing their games they would be wrong, just ignoring them doesn't make it wrong and it's showing that Kotaku is in the business to make drama.
 

Neurotic Void Melody

Bound to escape
Legacy
Apr 3, 2020
4,953
6
13
Why is this even important? I just...arghh! So many comments for such a tiny issue! This...baffles. Ugh, back to the wine it is then!!
 

The Kush Snickerer

New member
Nov 20, 2015
12
0
0
Defective_Detective said:
What the heck are you even talking about? "Show me the blacklist"?

We're not arguing over whether or not Ubisoft and Bethesda have or have not blacklisted them. You even admit that they're refusing Kotaku press access. Right there! In bold

It is completely legal for Bethesda and Ubisoft to choose who they do and do not talk to. That does not make it *right*.

Such actions hurt consumers by setting a precedent that if you are a gaming press outlet or Youtuber that does not "play ball" by probing too deeply into developer affairs, you will be refused press access, which ultimately hurts that outlet with a loss in readership since they won't be able to review games in time for release day.
It totally makes it right, they have the right to choose who they speak to and who they don't.
If they decide not to speak with the sensationalist Games Journalists Kotaku

They.
Don't.
Have.
To.

This isn't about Kotaku writing a bad review, they've done this before people still do bad reviews of titles and still get reviewer copies the year after, this is because Kotaku as an idividual site doesn't play ball like everyone else, see they are Journalists and bloggers when they need to be they play by their own rules.
Give me another website that claims an entire company "hates puppies"
It's shit like that, that got them "blacklisted" it wasn't a bad review or because they didn't "play ball".
They don't talk about fucking VIDEOGAMES, they talk about issues around them and nonexistent problems.

I don't know if your trying to play devil's advocate, or if you're genuinely supporting Kotaku, but I don't know how people can make it more clear to you that it's Kotaku's own fault.
 

Defective_Detective

New member
Jul 26, 2010
159
0
0
Gatlank said:
Defective_Detective said:
Gatlank said:
Defective_Detective said:
dirtysteve said:
Defective_Detective said:
The Kush Snickerer said:
That's the grave Kotaku dug when they decided to leak info out early, obviously.
You can't expect to be in a companies back pocket while simultaneously fucking them in the ass for clicks.
I'm sorry, but exactly what kind of relationship are you expecting Kotaku to have with publishers?

Are you saying it's completely acceptable for a company to blacklist journalists for unfavourable coverage?

There leads a very dangerous road...
Again, it's not really a blacklist, as it's individual companies making choices, not colluding.

You think Kotaku don't do the same? They pick and choose who they cover, often their good mates.
It's still blacklisting. It's individual companies making the choice to blacklist a gaming outlet.

And of course Kotaku pick and choose who and what they cover, but that's because they are not super-human. There are so many games being released these days that it is *physically impossible* for a review desk of maybe a dozen people to review everything that comes out. So they have to prioritize what they think will be of most value to their readership.

Bethesda and Ubisoft's behaviour is not even comparable. They are trying to control and denude a popular gaming press outlet and their readership by refusing access necessary for Kotaku to create coverage for their games.
Show me the blacklist.
As far as everyone nows this wasn't a joint effort to be called a blacklist.
Those companies decided they wouldn't waste more of their time with Kotaku and they aren't banned from reviewing their games (they now will have to buy them) has for interviews they are in their right to decide which media outlet can or cannot interview them.
What the heck are you even talking about? "Show me the blacklist"?

We're not arguing over whether or not Ubisoft and Bethesda have or have not blacklisted them. You even admit that they're refusing Kotaku press access. Right there! In bold

It is completely legal for Bethesda and Ubisoft to choose who they do and do not talk to. That does not make it *right*.

Such actions hurt consumers by setting a precedent that if you are a gaming press outlet or Youtuber that does not "play ball" by probing too deeply into developer affairs, you will be refused press access, which ultimately hurts that outlet with a loss in readership since they won't be able to review games in time for release day.
If Kotaku is so "popular" like you said then it's their loss.
It's in their right to refuse who or when should get interviews and those actions wont hurt consumers because *drum roll* there's more gaming media outlets out there.
One final note neither Bethesda or Ubisoft need to ensure a gaming outlet survival. It's just not their duty.
Kotaku squandered all good will making controversy and guess what.
They can ignore them, it's in their right and they are not wrong to ignore someone who steps over them to get clicks.

I absolutely agree that people are free to choose who and what to read and support. I, for instance, don't actually read Kotaku very much at all. If people don't read Kotaku because of the quality of their reporting, that's fine.

I will still defend them because they should be given access to press events, interviews and review copies so the consumers that do choose to read them and support them are informed about their purchasing choices. Denying press access hurts the quality of reporting through no fault of the outlet themselves, other than they dared to upset the plans of developer PR people.

Bethesda and Ubisoft should never be the arbitrators of what we the consuming public do and do not get to read about their business practices or games.
 

The Kush Snickerer

New member
Nov 20, 2015
12
0
0
Defective_Detective said:
Reviews should not be treated as mere advertising. What a sad, sad thing gaming culture would be if that was allowed to be the case. Reviews are meant for consumption by the buying public, the consumer, so that we can make decisions about our hard-earned money. The gaming outlets are meant to be on our side not the developers!

And a gaming outlets ability to provide consumer advice is seriously affected when they are unable to put out a review within a matter of hours before or after release. Why is this message so difficult to process?

I don't like Fox News. I think they are a spectacularly bad news outlet.

However, they still deserve a place in the White House press briefing room!

Otherwise, what's the point in the concept of a free press?
Reporters come and go, again you're acting like they are being denied to speak they aren't.
>The gaming outlets are meant to be on our side not the developers!
Kotaku made their decision when they realized who had more money to give them, they aren't on your side or my side, this sudden "change of heart" is crocodile tears nothing more.

>Reviews should not be treated as mere advertising. What a sad, sad thing gaming culture would be if that was allowed to be the case. Reviews are meant for consumption by the buying public, the consumer, so that we can make decisions about our hard-earned money.
Reviews are treated like that and always have been what are you talking about, hell you proved my own point with the "Reviews are meant for consumption". Reviewers don't supply artistic merit or creativity, they supply their personal opinion and that's about it (at least in the case of game journos, like Kotaku).

>Otherwise, what's the point in the concept of a free press?
See the free press goes both ways friend, the person being asked a question doesn't have to reply.
 

Gatlank

New member
Aug 26, 2014
190
0
0
Defective_Detective said:
Gatlank said:
Defective_Detective said:
Gatlank said:
Defective_Detective said:
dirtysteve said:
Defective_Detective said:
The Kush Snickerer said:
That's the grave Kotaku dug when they decided to leak info out early, obviously.
You can't expect to be in a companies back pocket while simultaneously fucking them in the ass for clicks.
I'm sorry, but exactly what kind of relationship are you expecting Kotaku to have with publishers?

Are you saying it's completely acceptable for a company to blacklist journalists for unfavourable coverage?

There leads a very dangerous road...
Again, it's not really a blacklist, as it's individual companies making choices, not colluding.

You think Kotaku don't do the same? They pick and choose who they cover, often their good mates.
It's still blacklisting. It's individual companies making the choice to blacklist a gaming outlet.

And of course Kotaku pick and choose who and what they cover, but that's because they are not super-human. There are so many games being released these days that it is *physically impossible* for a review desk of maybe a dozen people to review everything that comes out. So they have to prioritize what they think will be of most value to their readership.

Bethesda and Ubisoft's behaviour is not even comparable. They are trying to control and denude a popular gaming press outlet and their readership by refusing access necessary for Kotaku to create coverage for their games.
Show me the blacklist.
As far as everyone nows this wasn't a joint effort to be called a blacklist.
Those companies decided they wouldn't waste more of their time with Kotaku and they aren't banned from reviewing their games (they now will have to buy them) has for interviews they are in their right to decide which media outlet can or cannot interview them.
What the heck are you even talking about? "Show me the blacklist"?

We're not arguing over whether or not Ubisoft and Bethesda have or have not blacklisted them. You even admit that they're refusing Kotaku press access. Right there! In bold

It is completely legal for Bethesda and Ubisoft to choose who they do and do not talk to. That does not make it *right*.

Such actions hurt consumers by setting a precedent that if you are a gaming press outlet or Youtuber that does not "play ball" by probing too deeply into developer affairs, you will be refused press access, which ultimately hurts that outlet with a loss in readership since they won't be able to review games in time for release day.
If Kotaku is so "popular" like you said then it's their loss.
It's in their right to refuse who or when should get interviews and those actions wont hurt consumers because *drum roll* there's more gaming media outlets out there.
One final note neither Bethesda or Ubisoft need to ensure a gaming outlet survival. It's just not their duty.
Kotaku squandered all good will making controversy and guess what.
They can ignore them, it's in their right and they are not wrong to ignore someone who steps over them to get clicks.

I absolutely agree that people are free to choose who and what to read and support. I, for instance, don't actually read Kotaku very much at all. If people don't read Kotaku because of the quality of their reporting, that's fine.

I will still defend them because they should be given access to press events, interviews and review copies so the consumers that do choose to read them and support them are informed about their purchasing choices. Denying press access hurts the quality of reporting through no fault of the outlet themselves, other than they dared to upset the plans of developer PR people.

Bethesda and Ubisoft should never be the arbitrators of what we the consuming public do and do not get to read about their business practices or games.
Bethesda and Ubisoft are private companies and not public systems of goverment where public scrutiny is important.
In the end they are a business and a business can choose who gets access for interviews.
They can still report about games and their business practices.
You seem to be mistaken and think that Bethesda and Ubisoft issued a ban.
They didn't and Kotaku can still operate as normal. Had an army of lawyers stormed their offices and issued an cease and desist order then your last sentence would make sense.
You're letting emotion speak and being led by the drama.
Kotaku is trying again to make controversy where isn't none.
 

The Kush Snickerer

New member
Nov 20, 2015
12
0
0
Defective_Detective said:
I absolutely agree that people are free to choose who and what to read and support. I, for instance, don't actually read Kotaku very much at all. If people don't read Kotaku because of the quality of their reporting, that's fine.

I will still defend them because they should be given access to press events, interviews and review copies so the consumers that do choose to read them and support them are informed about their purchasing choices. Denying press access hurts the quality of reporting through no fault of the outlet themselves, other than they dared to upset the plans of developer PR people.

Bethesda and Ubisoft should never be the arbitrators of what we the consuming public do and do not get to read about their business practices or games.
What the fuck are you even going about?
None of this has happened, they just can't interview employees of Bethesda and Ubisoft.
Stop trying to make this bigger than it is!
 

FEichinger

New member
Aug 7, 2011
534
0
0
Defective_Detective said:
Bethesda and Ubisoft should never be the arbitrators of what we the consuming public do and do not get to read about their business practices or games.
And they're not. This is about leaks of trivial information that would've been released on their terms. At least if you believe Kotaku's story. It's about when this information is given to the public, not whether.

There is no service done to the consumer here, by publishing information early that the consumer would've gotten anyway. The articles lack notability. That's one of the big reasons why people aren't willing to defend Kotaku over the articles. It was a shitty move on Kotaku's part, it served absolutely no one except for their own bank account.

When you publish information that the origin of that information doesn't want published, you'll ruin your business relations with that origin. You need to find a reason that actually outweighs that before publishing a piece, or they will be fully justified in cutting ties with you.
 

Defective_Detective

New member
Jul 26, 2010
159
0
0
FEichinger said:
Defective_Detective said:
Bethesda and Ubisoft should never be the arbitrators of what we the consuming public do and do not get to read about their business practices or games.
And they're not. This is about leaks of trivial information that would've been released on their terms. At least if you believe Kotaku's story. It's about when this information is given to the public, not whether.

There is no service done to the consumer here, by publishing information early that the consumer would've gotten anyway. The articles lack notability. That's one of the big reasons why people aren't willing to defend Kotaku over the articles. It was a shitty move on Kotaku's part, it served absolutely no one except for their own bank account.

When you publish information that the origin of that information doesn't want published, you'll ruin your business relations with that origin. You need to find a reason that actually outweighs that before publishing a piece, or they will be fully justified in cutting ties with you.

I'm just going to leave a quote here that I think sums up my attitude towards this whole thing, really....


"Journalism is printing what someone else does not want printed: everything else is public relations."


- George Orwell

I will just leave you with the question. Do you actually want gaming journalism? Or public relations hype train?

Even if it's an outlet that I don't particularly care for, I think this kind of chicanery on the part of the developers ultimately hurts the consumer more.
 

Callate

New member
Dec 5, 2008
5,118
0
0
The announcement of games before an official company press release, particularly if it comes along with other leaked information (game dialogue scripts etc.) does have the potential to do the company and their product harm. It may be that the company is timing the news release with an eye towards their stock price or investor disclosures; it may be that they're concerned that releasing information- even a final title- before all elements are laid in stone reduces their ability to change or cancel the title without repercussions.

On one hand, blacklisting is a dickish response, arguably even a petty and self-sabatoging one. On the other, there's a certain irony to it that I can sort of appreciate: "Oh, well, it looks like you don't think you need official response from us anyway...!"

I'm not going to pretend that such a minor scoop, bought at such a cost, is journalism's finest hour or something. And the implication that this is some sort of shining example of They Who Shall Not Be Named not really being interested in ethics in journalism is... Well, let's see, how did I describe blacklisting?
 

drakonz

New member
Mar 1, 2014
52
0
0
Defective_Detective said:
FEichinger said:
Defective_Detective said:
Bethesda and Ubisoft should never be the arbitrators of what we the consuming public do and do not get to read about their business practices or games.
And they're not. This is about leaks of trivial information that would've been released on their terms. At least if you believe Kotaku's story. It's about when this information is given to the public, not whether.

There is no service done to the consumer here, by publishing information early that the consumer would've gotten anyway. The articles lack notability. That's one of the big reasons why people aren't willing to defend Kotaku over the articles. It was a shitty move on Kotaku's part, it served absolutely no one except for their own bank account.

When you publish information that the origin of that information doesn't want published, you'll ruin your business relations with that origin. You need to find a reason that actually outweighs that before publishing a piece, or they will be fully justified in cutting ties with you.

I'm just going to leave a quote here that I think sums up my attitude towards this whole thing, really....


"Journalism is printing what someone else does not want printed: everything else is public relations."


- George Orwell

I will just leave you with the question. Do you actually want gaming journalism? Or public relations hype train?

Even if it's an outlet that I don't particularly care for, I think this kind of chicanery on the part of the developers ultimately hurts the consumer more.
are you seriously defending kotaku move of leaking game something that in comparision is usualy done in big medias on celebrities by trash media(rumours, dirty pictures and other personal attacks that are done just to generate views)?
there is nothing good for consumer about what kotaku did it was move done for short term profits and its not what good journalist would do at all and you are ruining george orwell name just by including him in kotaku's defence and compledly altering orginal and true aim of the sentence you are quoting
 

Defective_Detective

New member
Jul 26, 2010
159
0
0
drakonz said:
Defective_Detective said:
FEichinger said:
Defective_Detective said:
Bethesda and Ubisoft should never be the arbitrators of what we the consuming public do and do not get to read about their business practices or games.
And they're not. This is about leaks of trivial information that would've been released on their terms. At least if you believe Kotaku's story. It's about when this information is given to the public, not whether.

There is no service done to the consumer here, by publishing information early that the consumer would've gotten anyway. The articles lack notability. That's one of the big reasons why people aren't willing to defend Kotaku over the articles. It was a shitty move on Kotaku's part, it served absolutely no one except for their own bank account.

When you publish information that the origin of that information doesn't want published, you'll ruin your business relations with that origin. You need to find a reason that actually outweighs that before publishing a piece, or they will be fully justified in cutting ties with you.

I'm just going to leave a quote here that I think sums up my attitude towards this whole thing, really....


"Journalism is printing what someone else does not want printed: everything else is public relations."


- George Orwell

I will just leave you with the question. Do you actually want gaming journalism? Or public relations hype train?

Even if it's an outlet that I don't particularly care for, I think this kind of chicanery on the part of the developers ultimately hurts the consumer more.
are you seriously defending kotaku move of leaking game something that in comparision is usualy done in big medias on celebrities by trash media(rumours, dirty pictures and other personal attacks that are done just to generate views)?
there is nothing good for consumer about what kotaku did it was move done for short term profits and its not what good journalist would do at all
The leaks were not the equivalent of irresponsible paparazzi photos. Not even close. They weren't an untruthful or malicious rumor, a non-contextual photograph or a baseless personal attack on anybody. It was an inconvenience for a PR team.

If the Escapist published a leak from an anonymous source from Valve about Half Life 3 development, would you call it bad journalism because the Valve PR team were miffed?
 

Lightspeaker

New member
Dec 31, 2011
934
0
0
This is absurd. Sorry, but it is.

What Kotaku has done is, in effect, the games equivalent of a "celebrity spotted doing something" story. They poked around and got someone to pass them information they shouldn't have and then splashed it all over their website to try and draw in the clicks. And then the people involved in the story have refused to have any future dealings with them as a result. This is a pretty much normal state of affairs in journalism and there are no ethical violations involved. This happens CONSTANTLY in actual journalism.

You want an example involving a genuine story that isn't something you'd have merely found out about anyway and was the result of investigative journalism? In 2004 the BBC aired a documentary making allegations about Jason Ferguson's football agency and the influence of his father in getting players to sign up with the agency. As a result of that Sir Alex Ferguson refused to talk to the BBC for seven years; despite being actually obligated to by the Premier League and therefore incurring a fine for every time he refused to do so. Guess what? It wasn't an ethical breach there either, despite being explicitly against the rules of the league to refuse.

Yet in this case the BBC absolutely DID have good reason to present this information and it led to the breaking of ties between the club and the agency if I recall correctly. In contrast there is little to no actual reason for Kotaku to release the info they did. Who did it serve? What was the point? To let people know things a little bit earlier than they would otherwise? There's an obligation to present stories that are in the public interest, but things that are in the public interest is NOT the same thing as what the public is interested in. Just because a lot of people would have liked to know about Fallout 4 being in development early doesn't make it morally right and just to release that information if its leaked to you; because at the end of the day nothing was gained. People merely found out a bit earlier and the publishers got wound up because their big announcements were sabotaged.


It is fundamentally dishonest to try to frame this as some kind of ethical breach or damaging to games journalism. This isn't an exposé on terrible working conditions or a culture of abuse within a company, it isn't a noble cause or a hill worth dying on to get the word out. Its a nasty little weasel of a story that was purely for sensationalist purposes about information that was going to come out ANYWAY when the publishers felt the time was right. Kotaku isn't The Times, its the equivalent of The National Enquirer. I'd no more expect actual hard-hitting journalism from Kotaku as I would expect it from Take A Break magazine.

People saying that publishers refusing to deal with Kotaku is damaging to actual investigative journalism in the game industry is like saying celebrities refusing to deal with the National Enquirer directly hurts the ability of the BBC to cover the Syrian refugee crisis. Its just an absurd notion. This is hardly a blackout of all non-friendly media coverage on the part of Bethesda or Ubisoft.
 

crimson5pheonix

It took 6 months to read my title.
Legacy
Apr 3, 2020
34,982
1,622
118
Defective_Detective said:
drakonz said:
Defective_Detective said:
FEichinger said:
Defective_Detective said:
Bethesda and Ubisoft should never be the arbitrators of what we the consuming public do and do not get to read about their business practices or games.
And they're not. This is about leaks of trivial information that would've been released on their terms. At least if you believe Kotaku's story. It's about when this information is given to the public, not whether.

There is no service done to the consumer here, by publishing information early that the consumer would've gotten anyway. The articles lack notability. That's one of the big reasons why people aren't willing to defend Kotaku over the articles. It was a shitty move on Kotaku's part, it served absolutely no one except for their own bank account.

When you publish information that the origin of that information doesn't want published, you'll ruin your business relations with that origin. You need to find a reason that actually outweighs that before publishing a piece, or they will be fully justified in cutting ties with you.

I'm just going to leave a quote here that I think sums up my attitude towards this whole thing, really....


"Journalism is printing what someone else does not want printed: everything else is public relations."


- George Orwell

I will just leave you with the question. Do you actually want gaming journalism? Or public relations hype train?

Even if it's an outlet that I don't particularly care for, I think this kind of chicanery on the part of the developers ultimately hurts the consumer more.
are you seriously defending kotaku move of leaking game something that in comparision is usualy done in big medias on celebrities by trash media(rumours, dirty pictures and other personal attacks that are done just to generate views)?
there is nothing good for consumer about what kotaku did it was move done for short term profits and its not what good journalist would do at all
The leaks were not the equivalent of irresponsible paparazzi photos. Not even close. They weren't an untruthful or malicious rumor, a non-contextual photograph or a baseless personal attack on anybody. It was an inconvenience for a PR team.
Actually it is. It is snippets of a game presented without context. It is straight tabloidism.
 

runic knight

New member
Mar 26, 2011
1,118
0
0
Gorrath said:
I can see where you're coming from about thinking they are hypocritical so that's fair enough. I don't quite see it the same because the standards for the two are different. I sort of expect politically charged comics to do this sort of thing while I want it the hell away from journalism. But I can hardly complain of your view that the act's are shitty no matter who engages in it.

At face value, I guess you could say it is ethics in journalism adjacent and therefore relevant? It's seems a mere semantic distinction to call it business ethics. If, say, Ubi had tried to sue the pants off Kotaku for publishing what they did I think it'd be a huge deal for us as gamers and people interested in seeing journalistic standards in the industry improve. After all, gaming journalism would be directly impacted by the unethical approach Ubi would be taking in this scenario and so would be relevant despite not being an issue with the outlet's ethics. Close enough for horseshoes, I'd say.

For your last paragraph here, the Blacklist against Kotaku occurred because they got some inside info on games that were being worked on by Ubi and Bethesda. After releasing this info, Ubi and Bethesda got pissed and quit talking to Kotaku. Kotaku didn't do anything unethical by releasing the info; that's their job as an outlet, even if the publishers didn't want the info released. So Kotaku did nothing ethically wrong but it did piss the publishers off and so they quit communicating with Kotaku, as is their own right. The whole thing is barely news, let alone an ethical scandal to shock the internets.
It isn't even quite that it is shitty no matter who does it, Though admitedly, clickbait garbage is, it is merely that they seem to use that as part of explanation why they dislike kotaku gawker yet engage in it themselves. At that point it isn't about any sort of ethical requirement on their part, merely they are not consistent to me.

I made the distinction I did between business and journalism ethics simply because of what you put so well in your last paragraph there: namely, who is committing the "unethical" action. In this case it is the business, not the journalists, so right off the bat it can not really be an ethics in journalism concern. The actual ruling on the action being an ethical breach or not doesn't even matter much in regard to that I think.

I do sort of have to disagree a little though, this is newsworthy. Sadly for kotaku not as an ethical crusade to rally behind, but rather as a sign of the state of games journalism in general that it has reached a point where publishers not having a popular games news site in their favor is the exception, not the norm. In that regard, it is newsworthy of just how bad the status quo of the industry is. Kinda doubt that is a story the news itself would run though.
 

vallorn

Tunnel Open, Communication Open.
Nov 18, 2009
2,307
0
0
Xsjadoblayde said:
Why is this even important? I just...arghh! So many comments for such a tiny issue! This...baffles. Ugh, back to the wine it is then!!
Ever seen the comments thread for White Guy Defence Force? I think that's what they were trying to do with this strip what with trying to summon The Shitstorm In Yellow (GG V AGG) to the comment thread... Still, it did get a lot of people discussing how Games Journalism functions which is always good for peeling back the paper thin veneer that most outlets put up!