BlackListed

[visiblenoise]

I really don't think these big publishers have anything to lose from blacklisting one gaming "news" site. Why not blacklist the shittiest one?

 

[Darth_Payn]

So, I take it Grey didn't like AC: Syndicate.
But I couldn't wrap my head around the blurb under the otherwise funny comic (ha ha, no one wants to play with Erin when her idea of fun is making others uncomfortable). It sounds like it's both shitting on Kotaku and praising them for doing their jobs. Granted, that job was blabbing about games in the early developing stages before their dev/publishers were ready to reveal it on their terms. So which is it, yay or boo?
Makes me glad the only Gawker site I regularly read is io9, but not everything there.

 

[The Almighty Aardvark]

Well, I've got a mixed bag of opinions on this subject.

On one hand it's kind of a dick move to spoil a big reveal of a game. There's a fine line between not being a company's mouthpiece and ruining an announcement that a company has had employees working on for a long time, and I think that Kotaku crossed it here

On the other hand, I don't like the idea of game companies cutting off reviewers because they say things that they don't like. Reviewers don't make that much money, and not recieving advance copies or having to buy every game they review can really hurt their livelihood. It's also a bad precident to start. This may be invalidated by the first hand though.

Only publishing stories when it's financially beneficial to a company though can also be a bad precedent.

On the inexplicably present third hand, I get a dirty feeling whenever I find myself on the side as Gamergate, particularly when I suspect they would have the exact opposite opinion if this happened to come from a gaming outlet that they didn't revile as an SJW hub.

Eh, having hashed things out I think my opinion is Kotaku shouldn't have revealed the games out of basic decency, but Bethesda and Ubisoft are treading on mighty thin ice with their response.

@jasonschreier one time I killed a German Shepard in-game for a Gamescom media demo and Kotaku's headline was 'Infinity Ward Hates Puppies'

Haha... that would have been funnier if it wasn't true...

Just read the article, you are aware they were being glib right?

 

[Fox12]

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.

Given that there was no NDA, I think it's enough to "blacklist" them, and be done with it. It was still immoral for kotaku to do what it did, as far as I'm concerned, but it's not illegal, and you can claim that Bethesda should have been more clear.

With an NDA, however, I think it's very clear what the expectations are. If it's willfully breached, then it's a betrayal of trust, and a publisher would be well within their rights to black list them, seek legal action, and to demand that employees termination. I would do all three. There's a difference between an innocent mistake and a betrayal of trust. I wouldn't have any compassion for someone like that, especially if I'd been hard at work on a major project I was proud of. We shouldn't be patting kotaku on the back for this. It's sleezy in the extreme, and the fact that they're pretending like they don't know what caused this is awful.

 

[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.

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.

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.

 

[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.

Given that there was no NDA, I think it's enough to "blacklist" them, and be done with it. It was still immoral for kotaku to do what it did, as far as I'm concerned, but it's not illegal, and you can claim that Bethesda should have been more clear.

With an NDA, however, I think it's very clear what the expectations are. If it's willfully breached, then it's a betrayal of trust, and a publisher would be well within their rights to black list them, seek legal action, and to demand that employees termination. I would do all three. There's a difference between an innocent mistake and a betrayal of trust. I wouldn't have any compassion for someone like that, especially if I'd been hard at work on a major project I was proud of. We shouldn't be patting kotaku on the back for this. It's sleezy in the extreme, and the fact that they're pretending like they don't know what caused this is awful.

Well sure, in the case of an NDA I can see terminations and lawsuits as being, possibly, in order. I meant in the absence of an NDA, as was the case here, those steps would be unethical. I've no compassion for Kotaku in this since they are not an aggrieved party. The whole post they wrote as a response is absurdly back-patting and hilariously pompous. I defend both party's actions as ethical, certainly not as valuable or in good taste. If I were in Bethesda's PR department, I'd want to stick my foot up Kotaku's backend myself, though I probably wouldn't ignore them either. It all seems like much-ado about nothing to me.

 

[Achelexus]

The complaints from butthurt kotaku fans has been glorious, though.

 

[vallorn]

Honestly my feelings on the matter are half and half. Those are leaked documents and publishing those is always going to get you a hammering, just look at the hammering this site got from RSI and fans when they merely published accusations. So I'm not really surprised that Bethesda and Ubisoft hit Kotaku like this, they want to try to prevent this kind of thing in future.

On the other hand, I think this is really a sign about how games journalism needs to break away from the EXCLUSIVE FIRST REVIEW model of revenue so that publishers can't rake outlets over hot coals like this. Kotaku is a despicable pile of filth as an outlet but in general this sets a worrying precedent for investigative journalism in the industry.

So yeah, I can understand why Bethesda and Ubisoft did it, but they've shot the messenger here and caused a PR hellstorm for themselves over it. As well as that, the power that publishers hold over outlets is still as worrying now as it was during Dorito Pope, the Kane and Lynch review scandal and GG.

I don't think I would really call this "ethics" though, its more like the mechanics of the industry than the ethics of the participants.

 

[stormtrooper9091]

and this is important, how exactly?

Of course, you *had* to take a swing at the whole "SJW" thing again, can't have traffic without it

 

[LordLundar]

Not the first time I read what Grey & Cory had to write below the comic, but in this case- I had to read. Had no idea whatsoever about the actual event, but now that I know what's up ... I kind of frown at Bethesda. I expected this move from Ubisoft, but for Bethesda to act the same makes me even less motivated to play Fallout 4 anymore.

Do yourself a favour and don't take the blurb they wrote as the entire story because it's not even close.

Short version is as follows:
1. Some idiot who used to work at bethesda grabbed the FO4 script and ran to Kotaku.
2. Kotaku decided to go for quick click bait (like usual) and put it out, spoiling the game for a lot of people.
3. Bethesda got pissed over this and declared they'll stop using Kotaku for coverage.
4. Kotaku is crying victim that they're being blacklisted for "investigative journalism".

 

[CaitSeith]

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!"

Blacklisted is a term used when a publisher or developer denies contact and review copies to a reviewer. It's been used like that before, and it doesn't require to involve the whole industry to use the term; because each company has their own blacklist.

 

[XT6Wagon]

I just want Kotaku to burn. Its not a place of journalism, its a place of casting couches and paid advertising. Any place that decides it needs to change its "ethics" policy from "whatever you want" to "don't pay money in addition to the coverage you are providing for that sex you are recieving" needs to go away. Worse it was quickly re-revised to that they could give money, just so long as they didn't get caught.

 

[FEichinger]

I wrote a rather extensive twitlonger about this [http://www.twitlonger.com/show/n_1snt5bt] last night, but I'll put some of the relevant sections here as well:

Let's leave the discussion about agenda-driven clickbait and social justice at the door and talk purely about journalism here: These dynamics between industry, outlets, and audience exist for a reason and are working as intended here. The outlet is conducting investigative journalism, to the chagrin of the industry parties. So the industry parties retaliate, and the outlet reveals said retaliation to their audience. The ball is now in the audience's court, and the audience is - at least as far as I can tell - deciding to simply walk away.

When conducting investigative journalism and publishing leaks, there are a few things to consider before actually printing a piece. Journalism doesn't mean publishing anything you have that might be of interest to someone. It's about careful considering of whether or not it is truly notable enough to match the sacrifices that are made - on the outlet's end, and on the ends of other parties. If you're in it just to "stick it to The Man", you have to acknowledge that The Man will work against you.

The important question to ask when publishing leaked information is "Is there a pressing reason for this information to be given to the public now, and not on the terms of the actual source?" This will generally apply to highly-important information - such as horrible work conditions, or information that is being swept under the rug indefinitely. It generally won't apply to screenshots that show up on reddit about a game in a series with yearly releases that show off only information that would be revealed at a normal announcement as well.

If you don't want to play by the rules, that's fine. But don't expect the ones making the rules to still give you the access you want. That's the sacrifice you make, in return for your editorial integrity - if you truly believe in the ideals you claim led to the blacklisting. Don't give your audience a reason not to support you in such a situation. Publicly mentioning that you're blacklisted is a gamble because it gives a lot of bad signals to potential investors, to other industry contacts, even to your audience. Stack the deck in your favour by maintaining a large and loyal readership and weigh your options before publishing a piece. Don't just leak something for the sake of "punching up" - especially when it is of little significance.

My response to the complaint that "all of a sudden GG doesn't want to talk about ethics anymore!!" is in there as well, and I don't think I'd do anyone any favours by putting a more direct answer here ... Suffice to say that I find it quite curious that people only want to talk about ethics when it's about protecting journalists, rather than criticizing their shitty work.

 

[The Enquirer]

This issue has me rather torn. On one hand, I fucking hate Kotaku. On the other hand, what they have done was actual journalism and reporting, rather than doing the usual for press outlets and regurgitating press releases and whatever info the industry willingly feeds. Bethesda and Ubisoft's decision to blacklist them is very shady and shows how far the big publishers will go to control information flow.

Here's the thing though: the only reason that the companies have the power to blacklist Kotaku so easily is because of how Kotaku and other press outlets have so gleefully acting as the PR-branch of the AAA industry. [a href=http://i.imgur.com/ZkzjJVm.jpg]They've all been so complicit in the bullshit the AAA industry tries to peddle[/a], never willing to criticize unless they think it will earn them more controversy clicks (like leaking some game documents). It's a business relationship the industry and the "press" has - say nice things about our games, we'll give you free stuff and info on our stuff so you can make articles for more clicks. This isn't really a matter of journalistic ethics, it's got to do with this business relationship. They acted badly in this relationship and are now facing the consequences for biting the hand that feeds, so I can't say I feel to sorry for them. Their recent article on the matter seemed like nothing more than whining that they were punished for acting bad on that relationship, rather than standing by their journalistic integrity (HAH).

Now, if more outlets continued the trend, broke their ties to the industry, and acted like actual reporters, then I'd be all for it. My guess is though this issue will die down soon and it'll "business" as usual for the gaming press and the gaming industry.

I'd be hesitant to call this actual journalism. I see no reason why they simply couldn't have reached out to Bethesda first and worked some some sort of exclusive interview in place of doing what they did. They get a piece that brings in traffic, publishers get to reveal the game on their own schedule.

It's not like they were exposing a shady business practice, they revealed a product a long time before it was ready.

 

[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!"

Blacklisted is a term used when a publisher or developer denies contact and review copies to a reviewer. It's been used like that before, and it doesn't require to involve the whole industry to use the term; because each company has their own blacklist.

I believe the confusion is because usually blacklisting is used to mean when a group of major industry players keep a list and jointly deny contact/hiring/some other benefit from whoever's on the list. The practice itself is unethical and in some instances illegal. To call a single entity refusing to speak to another single entity "blacklisting" fits the technical definition but should not be conflated with the unethical, industry-wide practice. So while some might call what Ubi or Bethesda did "blacklisting" it seems a cheap attempt to have the reader conflate it with the unethical/illegal practice that involves collusion. Whether or not Kotaku means for their readers to conflate the two I can't speculate but it's a pretty poor way to describe the situation in my opinion.

 

[CaitSeith]

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!"

Blacklisted is a term used when a publisher or developer denies contact and review copies to a reviewer. It's been used like that before, and it doesn't require to involve the whole industry to use the term; because each company has their own blacklist.

I believe the confusion is because usually blacklisting is used to mean when a group of major industry players keep a list and jointly deny contact/hiring/some other benefit from whoever's on the list. The practice itself is unethical and in some instances illegal. To call a single entity refusing to speak to another single entity "blacklisting" fits the technical definition but should not be conflated with the unethical, industry-wide practice. So while some might call what Ubi or Bethesda did "blacklisting" it seems a cheap attempt to have the reader conflate it with the unethical/illegal practice that involves collusion. Whether or not Kotaku means for their readers to conflate the two I can't speculate but it's a pretty poor way to describe the situation in my opinion.

It's cheap only if you expect the reader to not be familiar with gaming journalism terminology.

 

[ShakerSilver]

Regardless of what I think of Kotaku, this issue may serve to open up the discussion on how the far corporate industry is willing to control information about their practices and their products, and how the press may be serving as pawns (either wittingly or otherwise) to help further this control. The industry doesn't have any obligations to release information to the press, of course, but the press isn't obligated to follow lockstep with the industry and only regurgitating info from press releases, controlled private press events, conferences, etc. Sadly this is the case and much of the press is willing to go along with this since it nets them information and clicks for their articles. It's probably why many sites like Kotaku also rely and lots of opinion columns to get clicks - information on games simply can't be found and released unless the publisher/developer wishes for it to be released.

Another issue would be whether or not this is a GamerGate-related issue. GamerGate was the result of a supposed coup forming between certain press outlets and indie developers, but should the existing relationship between big publishers and the press not be explored within it as well? It may prove to be more damaging to gaming ignore given how damaging the business practices of these companies (preorder/hype culture, intrusive microtransactions, rushed deadlines and buggy releases, 8/10 and over being the only acceptable scores, etc). Then again, indies are much more sloppy with their business dealings with the press than AAA publishers/developers are, so it will take a lot more than a few internet harassers to dig up any dirt on them. If only the press weren't so compliant than it would be feasible.

I should note that the "blacklist"-itself is not an issue of ethical journalism, as it's more to do with a business dealing between the companies and Kotaku. The real issue of ethics is what allowed this "blacklisting" to occur and how the press was complicit in this.

 

[Weaver]

Can anyone tell me how, exactly, leaking a script is "investigative journalism"?

That aside, I've long, long, LONG been frustrating with how much corporate control and secrecy exists in this industry - way before gamer gate ever happened - and I've spoken out against it time and time again. I find the comic incredibly disingenuous.