BlackListed

[Gorrath]

Because this isn't them, "Throwing around their weight." This is two companies being petty because they didn't like something the outlet did.

Blacklisting an outlet because you don't like them covering leaks from your company is the very definition of throwing your weight around. This is their weight, and they're throwing it around, because they don't have control. Bethesda, and Ubi, shouldn't have editorial control over any press. And when outlets won't kowtow to them, they'll block access to their games and refuse to comment on any stories (Which they're obviously not obliged to do so, but those outlets are obliged to try to reach them for comment).

So exercising a right that everyone has and enjoys is, "throwing your weight around?" Your definition and mine seems to be quite different in this case. Usually, throwing ones weight around means doing something that strains the bounds of proper conduct because you are powerful enough to get away with it. Refusing to speak to someone or some entity because you don't like what they said about you or something you're doing in no way strains the bounds of proper conduct.

This does not give them editorial control over the press, it gives them a right to not comment just like you me and everyone else when it comes to the press. Conflating editorial control with an exercise of one's right to not comment is a serious fallacy of equivocation. And since you acknowledge that they are under no obligation to respond to the outlet I don't see how you can claim that they are either straining or breaking the bounds of proper conduct by not responding to the outlet.

 

[ShakerSilver]

But I wonder if there is truly a need for it, atleast to the degree some people claim there is. If it's something the public should know about, I'm all for investigative journalism. For example, things like programmers getting stuck in hired-fired-cycles because big developers find it more economical to let big chunks of teams go when projects near completion, or parts of electronics being produced in (environmentally) unsafe factories by underpaid, that's something consumers need to know. Heck, regular journalists should be reporting on that as well. But things like leaking games developers/publishers don't feel confident enough to reveal yet, I just don't see how something like that is or should be important.

I guess we really don't know if it is truly necessary, but that may have to do with just how crazy the industry is at keeping every bit of information under control. That leads us to the questions: why are they so tight-lipped and controlling? What is it that they have to hide? Considering the leak of Konami's working conditions and EA's tradition of gutting and liquifying developers and IP holders it buys out, I can't help but feel that the industry has some skeletons in its closet that it wishes it wouldn't be revealed. People like Kotaku that would leak even the most trivial information just for some more clicks are definitely threats to them.

This is of course just a lot of speculation, but I can't help but feel that the industry is constantly hiding things with how controlling they are of information.

 

[Gorrath]

The real idiocy of this all is:

Kotaku isnt even really blacklisted...

They are just being ignored by two publishers. Not by the entire industry.

Said two publishers havent even colaborated in their decision to ignore Kotaku for all we know...

Kotaku is simply using the word "blacklisted" because it sounds so much more evil and generates more clicks then simply saying "Bethesda and ubisoft dont call back anymore!"

They are like an abusive partner that wonders why their significant other isnt answering their IMs anymore after having been told its over.

Also i would like to remind everyone that its kotaku that claims they are being blacklisted for these articles and leaks. It could very well be that ubisoft and bethesda simply dont want to support such a toxic and harmfull website like kotaku any longer and simply see no value in cooperating kotaku, especialy when in the past both publishers have had some serious accusations of mysoginy flung at them from kotaku.

I mean i dont know about you guys but when im being called out as a mysoginist cause my game has no playable female protagonists i would start ignoring these shitflinging monkeys just the same... just saying.

To be fair, being ignored by Bethesda and Ubi does meet the technical definition of blacklisting. But It's also true that the blacklisting that one would usually talk about in this kind of situation is more specific than the general definition. It does seem like a semantic game where Kotaku uses a word that barely fits, possibly hoping people conflate it with the actual unethical practice which is more tightly defined and does not apply. It seems to be working!

 

[Daelin Dwin]

They should have respected the developer/publisher in not publishing documents they clearly didn't want published.

You and I clearly have very different ideas about journalism.

They should have respected the developer/publisher in not publishing documents they clearly didn't want published. If these documents exposed evil business practices or terrible work conditions then it would be a different story. But in both cases it was information about an upcoming title before it was ready for reveal. Heck, with Fallout 4 it was a script who's content was used in the final game.

Context is key.

Nah, that doesn't help it.

Kotaku's meant to cover games, and they're not meant to do that as part of a coordinated press release. They're meant to be an independant, critical press.

How is publishing leaked content "critical press"?

Yeah, they jumped the gun on Ubi and Bethesda's releases. Big whoop. Why are we trying to help Bethesda with their big launches, their advertising, and hype-mongering? We know what games were coming out. If they got a script, of course they're going to report on that. People want to see it, and it's not wrong to report on it.

It is entirely wrong to leak a script for an unannounced game. Just as it would be wrong to leak the script of any film or TV show. Or leak information about an upcoming/unannounced book/comic book.

Yeah, it's going to be annoying as fuck for Bethesda, but Kotaku are meant to be beholden to their readers, and it's not like they're being misleading, or putting people at risk.

They published leaked information about upcoming titles. They made it clear they would rather get quick views than respect the relationship they have with the developer/publisher.

 

[dohnut king]

This all seems rather petty. There are much better reasons to blacklist an outlet. Like because they're Kotaku, for example.

This. Bethesda did the right thing for the wrong reason. So a pox on both houses, but a lesser pox on Bethesda.

 

[runic knight]

On the topic itself. Good!

Kotaku has always been far far too closely ties with publishers, and if this marks a start of separating the two, then it is only a good thing. Honestly, I hope more publishers cut ties from media outlets, but I know that is a fools hope there.

On the subject of Kotaku itself, it is shit click-bait at its worst, and barely relevant information from other sources at best. While a popular name, it has no substance as a journalism outlet, despite presenting itself and claiming itself as, and it relies on either manufacturing or manipulating controversies more often than not. The fact it was this click-bait style of story seeking that caused them to be blacklisted is to me hilarious. This reaction from the publishers though, it isn't really ethics in journalism though, is it?

Ha ha, it's funny because it's tragically true!

It would be if there was a breach of ethics to be discussed that no one was discussing. The most I've seen is people claiming that Ubi and Bethesda refusing to share information with Kotaku is "shady." No explanation as to why it's shady other than because it may in some way impact Kotaku's ability to do hard hitting investigative journalism, despite neither publisher having any onus to help Kotaku with that or Kotaku being the kind of outlet that does much, if any, of that. So maybe the reason the "ethics in journalism" people aren't all over this is because there appears to be no ethical breach on the part of any party involved? In which case, how is the comic "tragically true"?

This pretty much hits that point home. Hard to argue about ethics in journalism when it isn't an issue of journalism acting unethically, but rather publishers responding to how the outlet acted previously. While there is sure a lot to discuss relating to the companies blacklisting Kotaku, ethics in game journalism really isn't one of those. Well, not unless perhaps the inclusion of it is a transparent attempt to make a jab based on personal disagreement.

 

[Gorrath]

Now, if they'd done something like try to get people who wrote the story fired or threatened lawsuits over the coverage or actually tried to get Kotaku on a blacklist, I'd be all aboard your train of thought.

If I was a developer, and kotaku did this to me, then I would be fine with all of these options. Of course, I would have had them sign a non-disclosure agreement, so take that as you will.

Well, I don't like heavy-handed NDAs and would not be okay with trying to get people fired who did nothing unethical themselves. I can see why the publishers didn't like what Kotaku did but Kotaku wasn't wrong for doing it either. This is just a case of the publishers having an agenda that conflicted with the outlet's agenda and the two having a kerfluffle over it. Neither did anything wrong but that doesn't mean they have to like what the other one did either. I think threatenign to sue people or trying to get them fired when they've done nothing morally or ethically wrong is itself a breach of ethics.

 

[Gorrath]

Well, not unless perhaps the inclusion of it is a transparent attempt to make a jab based on personal disagreement.

It's hard to read it any other way, isn't it? I am not and was not a part of the whole GG crowd but this does appear to be a cheap-shot at them concocted over nothing. Even the blurb below the comic is quite light on justification for how this whole thing has anything to do with ethics in anything.

 

[runic knight]

A situation that, until recently, would also have been looked upon as a sketchy concept which impeded journalism. That's the exact reason actual journalistic coverage is dying: news outlets cannot do honest investigative work for fear of being blacklisted.

This, frankly, is a bad thing to accept in journalism.

Wait... you are being serious here? You are aware that journalism has a long long history of having to actually work for their stories, right? The fact that the company had such ties to the media in the first place was the bad thing to accept, and something that in the past would have been seen as horrible. The blacklisting of the site that dared report on them is actually a good thing, as it means that A. Kotaku has to actually do their job instead of acting as simply a press mouthpeice for the companies' various information trickles, and B. the site has less conflicting interest about actually doing their job right since they have nothing more to lose from the company (after all, blacklisting is the worst they can do, and it is only because of the length of the unprofessionally friendly relationship that the change seems so weird).

The reason journalistic coverage is dying is because those cushy relationships between press and companies were made in the first place. They kept the hard hitting nature far far away and reduced most outlets from reporting news, to being little more than hype makers and carnival barkers, when not resorting to clickbait nonsense (or perhaps, aiding the rise of that trash). Saying that the removal of such a relationship between the site and the companies is a reason investigative journalism is dying is absurd. Every publication should be blacklisted so there isn't a conflict of interest in the first place, and it is because they are so closely in bed with one another currently that the investigative side of things is in such dire straights. Why do a hard hitting story on a company giving you huge parties and sending you free games, swag and information early? When the answer is "because they will then take all that extra stuff away and treat us like actual investigators and not bought PR under the guise of journalists", you kinda have no support to claim that the removal of that is the death of investigative journalism.

 

[NPC009]

Well, I guess more info could be gained from interviews, but companies have every right to say no to those and very few indivuals would be willing to risk their job so the masses can hear about the new AssCreed setting early.

No. But it'd be nice to have a heads up before an Asscreed Unity or Arkham Knight drops.

Companies announce games months, often years in advance with or without the involvement of the press. It's to their advantage to keep the consumer aware of their product.

The way the press works at present, they regurgitate the releases the company wants,

Like I said before, if a company is both subject and source, press releases will be a big part of news. What the press should do, is be critical towards both subject and source. Obtaining those press releases and sharing them in a manner that's useful to readers, that is their service towards their readers.

they write a review to release at launch,

Well, yeah, that's when people want to read reviews, not weeks after. Of course it's nice to publish reviews a little earlier, but you can't do that if you don't have access to an early copy. The press has to rely on publishers for that, and to be honest, embargoes aren't all bad. For instance, the European one for Xenoblade Chronicles X is 30 nov, half a week before release. Many reviewers have had their digital copy for over a week now. They're okay with us sharing impressions before that. All Nintendo of Europe wants is that the reviews are concentrated around launch to optimise the amount of attention the game gets. This is good for readers, because they should be able to read thorough reviews right on time. It's also nice for the critics, because we have don't have to rush through the game (or only sample a small portion of it!) to get the clicks we need to stay alive. In cases like this everyone wins.

and them once the Publisher has raked in all of the preorder and Day 1 sales money, the gamer, the reader, gets fucked in the ass by both of them.

If you decide to buy a game before it's even out, that's your responsibility. No one is forcing you to take that risk.

The journalists report on the trailers, the announcements, the goodies in the Special Editions, get people hyped up and preordering, reap the traffic of all that, and then the review, and the publisher gets some lovely coverage (Which is what they want). At present, what we get is what hype wants, which is what both publisher wants first, and what we want second. It should be us first, and that annoys the publisher, too bad.

And at the same time that's the kind of thing people like reading about. If the press is there to serve the reader, shouldn't they atleast share the facts?

There's not a massive amount of investigative or boundary pushing stuff that can be done, but we should all be a little disappointed with the state of things at present. At present, they don't take a critical eye to those releases. Look at this site. There's a bunch of cookie cutter reports every day with a link to another site which wrote on it originally, and it's all press material that the publishers want us to see. For one, ideally we shouldn't see every bit of hype being reported on. This drip feed of advertising. Obviously that's not going to happen. Someone wants to read it, and it's going to be there. We're our own worst enemy like that.

Yep, that bolded part, that's a big part of the problem. Even if the press is critical, it's no use if the readers aren't.

And if the coverage was cynical or critical, we'd see more of this. "We didn't like what you said about our trailer. We're going to let the other outlets know first, you're going to have to follow them". You know, like we're seeing here, or in other blacklisting cases.

I doubt it. There's a whole spectrum of stances you can take towards press releases, and the right one depends of the release and the publication. Some publications prefer to stick to the facts ('The new trailer shows a new playable character. She wields two swords.'), others go for the enthousiastic fan approach ('Her dual-wielding style looks promising and we'd love to test it ourselves'.), or even cautionary ('She wields two swords. Sadly, the series does not have a good track record with this style.'). Unless you're consistently unreasonably critical (as in, focusing only on the negative and stirring baseless controversy), publishers have little reason to put you on their ignore-list, because they need the press, perhaps even more than the press needs them.

 

[runic knight]

Well, not unless perhaps the inclusion of it is a transparent attempt to make a jab based on personal disagreement.

It's hard to read it any other way, isn't it? I am not and was not a part of the whole GG crowd but this does appear to be a cheap-shot at them concocted over nothing. Even the blurb below the comic is quite light on justification for how this whole thing has anything to do with ethics in anything.

This is probably the third or forth such thing from the comic I can recall, the creator obviously does seem to have a bit of chip on their shoulder there, though I don't quite get why. Then again, might be simply the click-bait controversy mongering nature of invoking gamergate they were seeking, so who knows. Either way though, for someone that seems to dislike Kotaku and Gawker, seemingly for being too personal opinion click-bait based, they don't do a lot to differentiate themselves in what they themselves do.

 

[JustAnotherAardvark]

Kotaku is shit, like its parent.
They've been shit for a long time.
I don't see anyone contesting this.

A couple game companies look up and say to themselves "Self, these guys are shit. Why are we talking to them again? Let's ... just stop."

Queue hand wringing from Kotaku "But we're really journalists, guise!"

The article cited echoes Gawker's post Hogan/Franco articles.
"No, guise, we're really journalists. The public has a right to see Hulk Hogan's dong. FOURTH ES-TATE, FOURTH ES-TATE..."

Erin needs more chanting.

 

[LordLundar]

You want to talk about this Grey? Fine.

What Kotaku did was the equivalent of a film reviewer writing an article about a murder mystery movie that's only been privately screened and saying who the murderer was. That's it. Not some grand scheme that the devs are trying to keep hidden because it makes them look bad at best. No, it was some stuff that the company wanted to keep secret so it would be a surprise to their consumers. So we have Kotaku, who doesn't give a rat's ass about anyone or anything but clicks putting on the biggest troll face, decided to screw both the devs AND their customers over and pushed out the spoilers. To the surprise of no one capable of a rational thought, the response toward them was decidedly negative from those groups.

You get it now Grey? This was not some grand blow for ethical journalism like they idiots at Kotaku are trying to proclaim. This was grand scale trolling that didn't go their way and now they're trying to plead that they're the victims as a form of damage control due to their own stupidity.

Maybe do some actual thought and research into WHY something happens instead of only listening to the self proclaimed "victims" next time. You might actually learn something.

 

[Aft3rShock]

Kotaku is perfectly within their rights as "Journalists" (lol) to release whatever "privileged information" they can. And Ubisoft and Bethesda have every right to no longer use them as a publicity shill.

Kotaku's "leaks" barely qualified as noteworthy. And Ubisoft/Bethesda's responses barely qualify as "shady"

 

[NPC009]

I guess we really don't know if it is truly necessary, but that may have to do with just how crazy the industry is at keeping every bit of information under control. That leads us to the questions: why are they so tight-lipped and controlling? What is it that they have to hide? Considering the leak of Konami's working conditions and EA's tradition of gutting and liquifying developers and IP holders it buys out, I can't help but feel that the industry has some skeletons in its closet that it wishes it wouldn't be revealed. People like Kotaku that would leak even the most trivial information just for some more clicks are definitely threats to them.

This is of course just a lot of speculation, but I can't help but feel that the industry is constantly hiding things with how controlling they are of information.

I think in the case of Kotaku, it has more to do with the scale of the projects they leaked info on. Both Ubisoft and Bethesda stake a lot of money on their games. A few misses are enough to put a company in dire straights. Of course they'll only want to reveal bits of the game they feel comfortable revealing. Respecting their wishes (to the extend to which this is reasonable) would be in the best interest of not just the company, but also their employees. And not just for financial reasons. things like poor working conditions often times only come to light if there is A) an investigation (by the government) or B) employees decide to open their mouth to the media. B won't happen if there isn't atleast some mutual respect and trust.

Of course, the press and their readers stand to gain from respectful but professional relationships as well, as these are the best ways of obtaining info and review copies.

 

[Gorrath]

Well, not unless perhaps the inclusion of it is a transparent attempt to make a jab based on personal disagreement.

It's hard to read it any other way, isn't it? I am not and was not a part of the whole GG crowd but this does appear to be a cheap-shot at them concocted over nothing. Even the blurb below the comic is quite light on justification for how this whole thing has anything to do with ethics in anything.

This is probably the third or forth such thing from the comic I can recall, the creator obviously does seem to have a bit of chip on their shoulder there, though I don't quite get why. Then again, might be simply the click-bait controversy mongering nature of invoking gamergate they were seeking, so who knows. Either way though, for someone that seems to dislike Kotaku and Gawker, seemingly for being too personal opinion click-bait based, they don't do a lot to differentiate themselves in what they themselves do.

Well, in their defense, they are comic makers not journalists and I do expect their personal views to heavily affect what they produce. I don't find that to be a big deal. I do roll my eyes though when they get into the blurb below the comic trying to justify how and why this should be upsetting to us though. The best shot they've got is in their last bit where they try to assert that they know that Ubi and Bethesda's actions are a deliberate attempt to interfere with Kotaku's hard-hitting industry journalism and we are left to assume that this interference represents a breach of ethics on Ubi and Bethesda's part. It's an argument so vapid it may as well be a vacuum.

 

[MiskWisk]

As a number of people have stated, this is hardly anything to do with ethics in journalism. Kotaku were within their rights and breached no regulations. Ubi and Bethesda have not acted unethically and are well within their rights to do this. Whether Kotaku breached their trust with the publishers and whether the publishers were heavy handed, that's up for debate.

Still, this got me a good chuckle and I look forward to the edits of this comic.

 

[Duffy13]

I suddenly realize I don't think a lot of folks know the difference between Ethics, Morality, and Laws...

Using the example of publishing inconsequential leaked information about games, it is clearly an ethical question, not a legal or moral one. Legality plays no part in the specifics (no contracts or laws were involved) and the information contained nothing such that it raised any moral questions (like the game is being made with slave labor and they're sacrificing kittens!), therefore to release such information is purely an ethical question.

So is it ethical to release information that you know someone doesn't want to release and doesn't contain any legal or moral quandaries the public or some specific party should be aware of? I think if the case applied to two random friends most of us would clearly think it's bad to share the info, so why would it be any different between two companies with overlapping interests?

 

[runic knight]

Well, not unless perhaps the inclusion of it is a transparent attempt to make a jab based on personal disagreement.

It's hard to read it any other way, isn't it? I am not and was not a part of the whole GG crowd but this does appear to be a cheap-shot at them concocted over nothing. Even the blurb below the comic is quite light on justification for how this whole thing has anything to do with ethics in anything.

This is probably the third or forth such thing from the comic I can recall, the creator obviously does seem to have a bit of chip on their shoulder there, though I don't quite get why. Then again, might be simply the click-bait controversy mongering nature of invoking gamergate they were seeking, so who knows. Either way though, for someone that seems to dislike Kotaku and Gawker, seemingly for being too personal opinion click-bait based, they don't do a lot to differentiate themselves in what they themselves do.

Well, in their defense, they are comic makers not journalists and I do expect their personal views to heavily affect what they produce. I don't find that to be a big deal. I do roll my eyes though when they get into the blurb below the comic trying to justify how and why this should be upsetting to us though. The best shot they've got is in their last bit where they try to assert that they know that Ubi and Bethesda's actions are a deliberate attempt to interfere with Kotaku's hard-hitting industry journalism and we are left to assume that this interference represents a breach of ethics on Ubi and Bethesda's part. It's an argument so vapid it may as well be a vacuum.

Fair enough, they aren't being held to a journalistic standard, though I find the reasons they mention in their dislike of kotaku, that of vapid elseworld articles and clickbait to still be sort of hypocritical when they rely on similar tactics to draw their own audience. While I fully give them all credit in the fact they don't have to adhere to an ethical standard, still feel I can point out the hypocrisy of their words and actions, especially given their attempt to present other people's complaints of kotaku for similar reasons as "idiots" and the like.

I will add though that even if they wanted to make an argument that the blacklist interferes with kotaku doing their job as an ethical issue, it wouldn't be journalistic ethics, but business ethics (since the ones doing "wrong" would not be journalism companies, but publishers). So even the attempt, when taken at face value, still doesn't apply the way they wish.

Oddly enough, there was an opening there to mention kotaku's own actions that caused the blacklist with regard to ethics and stuff, but that seems to have been ignored entirely there. Not sure if it is because they don't seem to be unethical in what the released that caused the blacklist, or if it is because it was a while back and at the time there was fervor over it.