BlackListed

[CaitSeith]

Ok, what i don't get is why WOULD there be any discussion about ethics in game journalism here?
That discussion is generally about whether or not game journalists are acting ethically, not whether or not someone else is doing something ethical towards game journalists.
Sure there can be a discussion whether or not game publishers are acting ethical, but that question has been clearly answered with "No and they never did" a long, long, long, looooooong time ago.

In fact it kinda is. If a journalist have leaked news, should he write about it? Or should he be quiet and remain out of trouble? Who should be more important for him? The readers? Or the corporations? IMO, it depends. If he have leaked news, he should verify the source so he doesn't publish false information.

There are more topics on ethics in game journalism than journalists' personal agendas.

PS: Besides, there is people who still see publishers as mere victims of unjustified criticism.

 

[JustAnotherAardvark]

Did something new happen, or is this all in response to a fairly self-serving article by Stephen Totilo?
(paraphrase: "They don't like to talk to us because we're hard hitting journalists that have a duty to our readers." - Source: Kotaku)

 

[Karadalis]

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 is literally big corporations throwing around their weight to discourage a site reporting what they don't want them to report. I know it's not about an indie developer's sex life or about someone airing a criticism of a game that you don't agree with, but you can't see how maybe this is kind of unethical?

Yeah how dare those big developers dont want some tabloid blogger website that keeps insulting them ruining their big reveals?

Look, kotaku didnt reveal a huge scandal here, they simply stole the thunder from these corporations and that pissed them off. Not to mention what if fallout 4 had been canceled? Bethesda would have cought so much flag if that happened because the internet would have ofcourse been the internet and they crying from rabid fanboys would have summoned another shitstorm.

Again: Bethesda and Ubisoft have NO ethical and NO moral obligation to even talk to kotaku staff less aknowledge kotakzus existnance as a journalistic outlet.

Otherwise every youtube schmuck could ***** and moan the same about not getting answers from big Dev execs.

Ubisoft and Bethesda did not try to censor kotaku when they released those leaks, they did not threaten them with lawsuits, they did not DMCAd kotaku. They simply stopped interacting with Kotaku.

There is nothing wrong with that and kotaku has only themselves to blame. Its not like kotaku isnt known as a completly toxic website of social "justice" advocates that rip into gamers, game devs and publishers alike all the time and are a completly unpleasant bunch to deal with for any developer or PR department.

They are literally the kid that poops in their own had and flings their shit in all directions just to then cry about why no one wants to be their friend anymore.

 

[09philj]

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

 

[Amaror]

Ok, what i don't get is why WOULD there be any discussion about ethics in game journalism here?
That discussion is generally about whether or not game journalists are acting ethically, not whether or not someone else is doing something ethical towards game journalists.
Sure there can be a discussion whether or not game publishers are acting ethical, but that question has been clearly answered with "No and they never did" a long, long, long, looooooong time ago.

In fact it kinda is. If a journalist have leaked news, should he write about it? Or should he be quiet and remain out of trouble? Who should be more important for him? The readers? Or the corporations? IMO, it depends. If he have leaked news, he should verify the source so he doesn't publish false information.

There are more topics on ethics in game journalism than journalists' personal agendas.

PS: Besides, there is people who still see publishers as mere victims of unjustified criticism.

Personally i would not consider what kotaku did or what bethesda or Activision did as something ethically wrong. Kotaku can publish information if they think it's important to the public and Bethesda and Activision don't have any obligation to supply anyone with free copies of their game or promotional material. No matter if they call themselves Journalists or bloggers.
But considering to outstanding ethical questions you mention in your post, there allready is a guide for ethical journalistic behaviour.

http://www.spj.org/ethicscode.asp

Doing a quick scan of that kotaku may be in the wrong here:
Avoid undercover or other surreptitious methods of gathering information unless traditional, open methods will not yield information vital to the public.

I think we can all agree that the leaked information was not vital to the public?

 

[Calbeck]

"reporting actual news"

Um, no. Clickbait and manufactured outrage ain't news. At this point, even Notch is calling them gaming's version of Fox.

 

[StatusNil]

Oh, so NOW the cartoon girl really wants to talk "ethics in games journalism"? Well, too bad people outside the comic can't interject before the third panel, by which the authors declare there is no interest. Almost makes it look like there was no real opportunity to do so before the conclusion. In other words, like a passive-aggressive cheap shot at a popular bete noire. One does have airs to maintain, after all, even when taking a swipe at Kotaku.

Kotaku vs. Ubisoft/Bethesda is kind of like an Alien vs. Predator situation. It's a smart move for the humans to let the beasts gore each other without jumping into the middle, and then finish them off when they're weak from acid loss. Yeah, for all the reasons to ignore Kotaku, this is pretty pathetic of the industry giants. Personally, I would prefer if it was because it's the kind of site who would manufacture "systemic oppression" to fuel damaging culture wars in order to promote people who frequent the same exclusive orgies. But let's not pretend leaking info on future product is some kind of major "journalisting" feat either. Sure, I'm often enough interested in that stuff myself, no point in huffily pretending otherwise. And that's why they do it, to pander to our curiosity. That's cool, but not especially virtuous. Furthermore, sometimes it sure looks like it serves the mutual interests of these companies and Kotaku to publish that stuff, like when they "leaked" Ass Creed: We Fashionably Victorian Now! to conveniently pull some of the focus off the newly released bug buffet Unity.

What has Kotaku to do with Games Journalism?

I thought they were bloggers not journalists.

That's not what Stephen Totilo thinks, though. He's under the impression that they are indeed a journalistic institution. So we should judge them on the standards they have chosen to parade.

 

[Gorrath]

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 is literally big corporations throwing around their weight to discourage a site reporting what they don't want them to report. I know it's not about an indie developer's sex life or about someone airing a criticism of a game that you don't agree with, but you can't see how maybe this is kind of unethical?

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

Here's a few things that would be "throwing around their weight" and would be unethical:
If they threatened to sue Kotaku over the coverage.
If they tried to get other publishers to not deal with Kotaku (which would be an actual blacklist.)
If they tried to get whoever wrote the story fired from Kotaku.

There are another dozen or more things I could conjure up that would be an unethical response to Kotaku's actions. But in order for something to be unethical, it has to violate a personal/professional standard or obligation. Since neither Besthesda nor Ubi has an obligation to say anything to Kotaku, they are not doing anything unethical by refusing to say anything. It's a petty move, sure. It may also backfire. But since there is no obligation or standard that's been breached by their silence, they have quite literally done nothing unethical. They are no more required to talk to Kotaku than you are to talk to Fox News or The Daily Mail. If someone can actually show that either publisher has failed to meet a professional standard or failed to uphold its obligations, I'd be happy to consider it. As far as I can tell so far, this is a spat between Kotaku and these publishers. Kotaku did nothing unethical in its coverage and Ubi and Bethesda are doing nothing unethical in their silence.

 

[NPC009]

From my experience, publishers will hand the media info early so they'll have some time to do a proper write-up and put the article online at the same time as the publisher's reveal goes live. Leaking that info early does not make you a better journalist. It just makes you an idiot for only thinking of the short term and a dick for ignoring a harmless request. Releasing sketches or a piece of a script early is not hard-hitting journalism, no matter how you look at it.

If you happen to uncover something uncouth and report on it, good, that's right thing to do. However, I doubt you'll be changing any lifes for better or worse by sharing a few pictures of a game early. The folks at Kotaku are no heroes.

Besides, companies are under no obligation to share this stuff with the press anyway. They're doing you and your readers a favour if they do share, so it pays to play nice unless there's something important to report on.

(Companies that blacklist critics for giving less than desirable scores are doodooheads, though. Well, and dumbdumbs too, I guess, as they're preventing positieve reviews from going up before/on launchday as well.)

 

[shirkbot]

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

This pretty much sums up my opinion on the matter.

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.

I think that that's actually the point: Nobody acted particularly unethically, but Kotaku is still being punished. It's not even like they published anything destructive, just that Ubisoft and Bethesda were working on new games in flagship franchises. All Kotaku effectively did was get the hype train rolling a little earlier than it would have otherwise.

If Ubisoft and Bethesda want to blacklist Kotaku, that's there prerogative but they should at least do it because they've done something that is clearly wrong. I don't think it's really going to hurt either party in the long run, but this is such a borderline infraction that it just seems petty.

All that said, I still think Kotaku is garbage.

 

[Gorrath]

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

This pretty much sums up my opinion on the matter.

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.

I think that that's actually the point: Nobody acted particularly unethically, but Kotaku is still being punished. It's not even like they published anything destructive, just that Ubisoft and Bethesda were working on new games in flagship franchises. All Kotaku effectively did was get the hype train rolling a little earlier than it would have otherwise.

If Ubisoft and Bethesda want to blacklist Kotaku, that's there prerogative but they should at least do it because they've done something that is clearly wrong. I don't think it's really going to hurt either party in the long run, but this is such a borderline infraction that it just seems petty.

All that said, I still think Kotaku is garbage.

That's what I was driving at though. Kotaku did nothing unethical in this situation as far as I can tell and neither Bethesda nor Ubi did anything unethical by refusing to speak to them. Also, I have some qualms about calling this activity "blacklisting" since there actually is a form of blacklisting that is unethical. If Ubi or Bethesda tried to use their power to get other publishers to not talk to Kotaku in order to shut Kotaku out of the industry that would actually be blacklisting and would be very unethical. But neither company is obligated to talk to Kotaku themselves. It may be petty, sure but not unethical and so what ethical concern do we have to discuss?

 

[ShakerSilver]

This is literally big corporations throwing around their weight to discourage a site reporting what they don't want them to report. I know it's not about an indie developer's sex life or about someone airing a criticism of a game that you don't agree with, but you can't see how maybe this is kind of unethical?

Really, the only reason they have the weight to throw around was because of how complicit the gaming press (Kotaku included) has been in how corporate gaming is so controlling with information. They've mostly been just regurgitating what the companies reveal through press statements, private press showings, conferences, etc. It's no wonder that when Kotaku breaks that business relation, the companies would break ties with them.

 

[TheMysteriousGX]

Wow, I don't think I've ever seen so many people argue that reviewers and "games journalists" should kow-tow to developer's wishes before.

We get the journalism we deserve, I guess. We don't want any news the developer doesn't want out, we don't want scores to be too low in case the devs lose money, we don't want scores to be too high if the game's too small or we don't like it personally, and for god's sake, your news better not cost anything. Just be a nice little PR outlet unless we want you to be our attack dog.

Now follow all these journalistic rules to the letter or we'll vow to destroy you and everyone you're connected with. And don't call us names.

 

[Something Amyss]

It's interesting. Until today, Kotaku was some sort of SJW new conspiracy that we were all accountable for. At least, that's what I inferred from the way it came up in all these talks about ethics violations and how it was used against every "SJW" out there. Not to mention, the talk about biased journalism.

Today I learn it's just a blog, and has nothing to do with journalism.

I guess now that we've established that, it'll stop coming up in ethics discussions.

Yeah, your opinion is wrong. All journalism should be modified press releases that just in case should be read through by a PR team from the company in question to make sure they haven't put a comma where they should have used a semicolon. Because that's how churnalism WORKS.

Oh, my bad, you said journalism. I tend to mix these up as they are getting increasingly difficult to separate from each other.

Indeed. It seems weird that the people who ostensibly want games journalism seem to be pushing for even less distinction.

 

[Furnicula]

Oh, but people are using this opportunity to talk about "ethics in gaming journalism".

Here's a Call of Duty developer talking about it: https://twitter.com/ChanceGlasco/status/667458383600099328

Here's a BioWare developer talking about it: https://archive.is/IvowH

Here's Boogie 2988 talking about it: https://twitter.com/Boogie2988/status/667491610255491072

And Notch: https://twitter.com/notch/status/667674105370529792 https://twitter.com/notch/status/667675030248161280

Here's Adrian Chmielarz and George Broussard talking about it: https://twitter.com/adrianchm/status/667708335517532160

Here's Penny Arcade: http://www.penny-arcade.com/comic/2015/11/20/parabolic1
And GameZone: http://www.gamezone.com/originals/opinion-no-kotaku-you-weren-t-blacklisted-for-speaking-the-truth-jxh2

Among other publications.

I can kind of agree with both sides somewhat, but this would be a lot easier to swallow if Kotaku and Gawker in general wasn't such a pit of shit. They are entitled to write about whatever they want, they aren't entitled to getting free Pre-Release copies and invitations to Release-parties and the likes. Frankly if Kotaku and Gawker would shut down today, the world tomorrow would be a better and happier place aside from the few sociopaths that they are keeping under lock and key being set free into the larger New York area.

 

[CaitSeith]

snip

Personally i would not consider what kotaku did or what bethesda or Activision did as something ethically wrong. Kotaku can publish information if they think it's important to the public and Bethesda and Activision don't have any obligation to supply anyone with free copies of their game or promotional material. No matter if they call themselves Journalists or bloggers.
But considering to outstanding ethical questions you mention in your post, there allready is a guide for ethical journalistic behaviour.

http://www.spj.org/ethicscode.asp

Doing a quick scan of that kotaku may be in the wrong here:
Avoid undercover or other surreptitious methods of gathering information unless traditional, open methods will not yield information vital to the public.

I think we can all agree that the leaked information was not vital to the public?

I think that's debatable. Is the revelation of a specific game being developed vital info for the gaming community? Because when official revelations are made, the gaming community goes crazy (of joy and/or anger).

The question here is, what can be defined as vital for the gaming community?

 

[hermes]

This is not news. Many outlets get blacklisted by publishers and developers on a regular basis.

The only difference was that Kotaku publicly stated they are blacklisted and ventured a justification why it happened, while most cases just suspect they are... but Kotaku are not the first or the only ones.

 

[Something Amyss]

But information security is their responsibility. It doesn't matter who they blacklist. If there's still a risk info will be leaked somewhere outside the company someone will happily follow Kotaku's example. As long as there are leaks there will always be someone around to break the news to the world. It gets clicks, and that's really all that matters in the end. To many, it's worth getting blacklisted by one company.

It might stop happening if such sites fear such reprisal. Which is exactly the problem here: a publisher is attempting to exercise undo control over gaming "press." It shouldn't even need to be said that this is a form of coercion.

 

[snintendog]

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 is literally big corporations throwing around their weight to discourage a site reporting what they don't want them to report. I know it's not about an indie developer's sex life or about someone airing a criticism of a game that you don't agree with, but you can't see how maybe this is kind of unethical?

Yeah how dare those big developers dont want some tabloid blogger website that keeps insulting them from ruining their big reveals?

Look, kotaku didnt reveal a huge scandal here, they simply stole the thunder from these corporations and that pissed them off. Not to mention what if fallout 4 had been canceled? Bethesda would have cought so much flag if that happened because the internet would have ofcourse been the internet and they crying from rabid fanboys would have summoned another shitstorm.

Again: Bethesda and Ubisoft have NO ethical and NO moral obligation to even talk to kotaku staff less aknowledge kotakzus existnance as a journalistic outlet.

Otherwise every youtube schmuck could ***** and moan the same about not getting answers from big Dev execs.

Ubisoft and Bethesda did not try to censor kotaku when they released those leaks, they did not threaten them with lawsuits, they did not DMCAd kotaku. They simply stopped interacting with Kotaku.

There is nothing wrong with that and kotaku has only themselves to blame. Its not like kotaku isnt known as a completly toxic website of social "justice" advocates that rip into gamers, game devs and publishers alike all the time and are a completly unpleasant bunch to deal with for any developer or PR department.

They are literally the kid that poops in their own had and flings their shit in all directions just to then cry about why no one wants to be their friend anymore.

Yup nail hit on the head.

 

[Loonyyy]

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.

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. 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.

Ok you have just spent 100k on your big launch at the show and some bloggers come along and leak the item early so they get more ad revenue. So it's no longer the lead item and you no longer get the huge amount free coverage that the launch party setup to generate. There is a reason why there are launch parties and its not for the sake of it. Its there to be the top item across multiple media around the world when it comes to games at the moment of choosing of the business doing the launch . Kokutaku fucked that up for their own economic benefit so they will get put out in the cold lose the economic benefit of review copies and have to wait until they can buy it retail. Cause/effect.

1) Like Ninja said, the game is still the news story. This isn't them losing out on sales, or being one upped by another story. It's still feeding the hype machine, it's still feeding interest. While it's admirable that they aren't going to kowtow to big devs and publishers, what they came out with is still kinda worthless. Whoop. A sequel we knew is coming is coming, and people can get hyped for it.
2) The game is still the lead item.
3) The launch party is not "free coverage". It cost 100k. That's obscene.
4) It's still going to be one the top of the media around the world. Have you seen E3? Like, they have massive launches, with new information, being streamed everywhere. And they usually run with a trailer, a playthrough, or whatever. That's going to have it's value whether or not someone has an inkling that the next AssCreed is coming out, or that Bethesda is going to release a sequel to a tentpole franchise.
5) What this is not "cause/effect" and some form of karma. We should be glad to see things like this, and see that the press is independent of the big publishers, who frequently advertise on the same sites. That those sites have editorial control, and that those editors have ice water in their veins and not Mountain Dew. The reason they try to cut into their revenue, they blacklist, is because they don't want people hearing those views, or because they don't want to have a press that isn't answerable to them. That's not particularly admirable.

What Bethesda's done isn't "wrong" per se. Nobody is entitled to a review copy. But it's certainly not justifiable, it's just another publisher trying to squeeze some control out of the press, so that we can have our status quo of churned out press releases, and a 7-10 review on launch.

And again: It ain't like this is a massive point in Kotaku's favour. They got blacklisted for dropping the fact that some games were coming out, and info related to them. That's just more marketing.