BlackListed
- Thread starter The Wooster
- Start date
Recommended Videos
To be honest I consider it spamming purely on the basis that you didn't try to use them to make an argument, you just pretty much said "Here is a comic I agree with." They don't add anything to the discussion and frankly they're annoying. So it's ok to resort to logical fallacies if the other person did it first?dirtysteve said:
You don't need to resort to ad hominem in order to prove my point. My point was that we live in a world where people are more focused on arguing against stereotypes of what people say, which was me trying to say that basically, we don't respect the people we argue against and we already decided long ago that they were wrong. You dismissing what Kotaku says based on your personal opinion on them being shit is pretty much what I was trying to talk about. Things like "We all know that's bullshit" is hardly a logically sound way to dismiss someone else's argument.
Given that you're adding a new financial burden to an already underpaid group of people, you're actually opening them up to more chances for corruption, as this will put more power in the hands of publishers.C14N said:
You write this as if those poor unfortunate journalists aren't also part of corporations. This isn't big bad corps stomping all over independent journalists for breaking Big News. This is two corporations breaking a business relationship with a third corporation because they don't like what the third corporation did. I would like to know what, in this situation, makes either Ubi or Bethesda "deceptive."Norithics said:
As far as I can tell, the only one of the three corps who's being a deceptive shitstain is Kotaku, since they make several claims in their article that range from hack writing to laughably absurd. This isn't "the press" vs "meany corp. #1 and #2" this is a corporation that relies on manufactured drama manufacturing drama because two other coprs. broke relations with them for being hacks.
Everyone one here is "blameless" in the sense that none of the three parties have done anything unethical. If any of the three even bordered on shady, it was Kotaku itself for tip-toeing a thin line in how they released the info they did.
>I point out that this isn't an issue of ethics.whatever55 said:
>You quote me and argue against me, saying (as far as I can tell) it isn't an issue of ethics; as if I've argued that it is.
...what?
I do have a point. To elaborate: in each case a media organisation released a story that someone was unhappy with and that someone refused to continue dealing with them on a personal basis. And there is no ethical issue there, its fundamental to journalism of any kind. The cases follow the same pattern in both situations.
I said NOTHING AT ALL about blacklisting. In any way. Whatsoever. I have no idea what you're talking about in your reply. What point are you trying to make here?
Considering that their parties are usually an embarrassing mess, Kotaku did a favor to the kid by warning him. /jkBiH-Kira said:
Now, I know this isn't really related, but I can't keep out of my mind the disturbing implications of having gaming corporations as parents.
Probably historical context.CaitSeith said:
I can't speak for anyone else, but when I think "blacklist", I'm thinking of things like the Hayes Code, RIAA, several Hollywood cabals, and the CCA. Where several if not all major players in the business would collectively ostracize another entity to exert political and economic power.
It's one thing to be shitcanned by a big business, it's another to be shitcanned by ALL of them.
Best anyone can tell, Ubisoft and Bethesda made their decisions to blacklist Kotaku independently, and based on Kotaku's actions and attitude towards them than any conspiracy. Given that no other major publishers have followed suit yet, that seems likely.
Generally, the unethical/illegal form of blacklisting involves collusion, which requires at least two parties but often more when we're talking traditional industry-type blacklisting. It doesn't have to involve a whole industry, but it does require more than one major participant and collusion to be considered the unethical/illegal sort.CaitSeith said:
One or more entities breaking a business relationship with another entity unilaterally certainly doesn't qualify as that sort of blacklisting though.
I didn't think about that. Kotaku shouldn't have just spoiled the party. Calling the social service would be the right thing tod o. Poor little kid.CaitSeith said:
That is a pretty good way to word it, got to admit. Also sort of hightlights both the silliness of the companies to blacklist over the issue, as well as the complete lack of relevance to journalistic ethics in the first place.BiH-Kira said:
I think the slide into the current state of the industry really has made too many people accept the outright unethical practices journalists commit far too easily. Bias and gifts has always been something they should have avoided from the start, so it is weird to me seeing some people trying to claim that kotaku not getting freebies is the death of journalistic integrity in games journalism. It is so backwards.BiH-Kira said:
Could you please explain what you want then?Something Amyss said:
On one hand you dont want them to be dependant on big publishers and do real journalism from the sound of it...
On the other you argue that they should keep getting review copies and access to devs for interviews..
To me it seems that you are not contributing to the discussion here and are merely arguing against people for the sake of saying "nu-uh! it seems because either way you turn in this whole debate, youre against it for some reason. Ohyes and unnecesary gamedropping and then the famous claim that "you dont care about gamergate"...
I dont have a complete picture on what weird utopic idea of publisher / journalist relationshipts you have on your mind but from what i have seen from your arguments i get quite the picture.. and i have to tell you that it doesnt work that way in the real world. You can NOT have real journalism when you are DEPENDAND on the goodwill of those that you report about. Because then we have situations like what is going on with kotaku at the moment.
Either you have the publications being nothing more then PR mouthpieces for the big publishers, or you have "independand" journalists who dont rely on the goodwill of publishers and do real journalism without fearing loosing some priviliges in return.
There is no inbetween, there is no journalism AND getting all the free stuff + interviews + adds and still get to shit on the companies who give you all that. This is business relationships 101 for christs sake.
Are you for outlets like kotaku getting free shit? Then you are for the status quo of game outlets being nothing more then extended PR departments.
Are you against outlets like kotaku being dependand on big publishers goodwill and do their own thing? Then im afraid that these outlets will have to say no to early preview copies and exclusive interviews and deals as a collective. Wich ofcourse will NEVER happen because that would suggest the games journo scene has any integrity left whatsoever.
As jim sterling in his most recent video that covered this story said: "If you cannot survive without early review copies and interviews then you didnt had a product worth selling anyways" and that "Acess is a bonus" and this time i have to agree with Mr. Sterling.