BlackListed
- Thread starter The Wooster
- Start date
Recommended Videos
> thisisbait.jpg
There's a lot of good stuff in here, but there's one thing that sticks out, so forgive me, DD:
If they want to be real journalists and pound pavement to get us info that isn't doled out like candy, that's even better! But it's the hypocrisy of Kotaku thinking they can publish leaks and still get early review copies for free that annoys me.
Kotaku - even if they themselves didn't break any laws - were extremely unprofessional in publishing leaked documents over a year before Bethedsa had even acknowledged that the game was in development. This isn't a case of the public interests needing to know about deplorable working conditions (see: Konami) or rumors of wildly inappropriate uses of crowd-funding (see: Star Citizen), both of which at least appear justified in discussing with the public - this was a simple juicy scoop that probably borked months of planned marketing, and took the wind out of the sails for some of the bigger surprises in a sequel fans had waited nearly a decade for. In short, it screwed with Betheda's plans. Whether they should be so protective in the first place is debatable, but having waited nearly 3 years for The Phantom Pain from trailer to game, I can say that Betheda's announcement a mere 6 months before the release date has a certain appeal to it.
Does the public deserve to know that Fallout 4 exists? I... guess so? It's not like the rumor mill hadn't been spinning for a while by then anyway. I agree that the secrecy this industry tends to wallow in is absurd, and pulling those curtains back would actually go a long way in being able to forgive things like DLC, day-one patches and missing featues with the realities behind them explained and laid bare... but that's a separate discussion entirely.
Does Kotaku deserve a copy of it? Why would they? Do all popular game blogs just get copies by default? Are they "entitled" - a word this particular industry so loves using - to free, early copies no matter how hard they ignore the wishes of the publisher? Unless I'm missing something this isn't an "ethics" issue - not on Bethedsa's end, at any rate.
Sure, if Kotaku lost their early access over, say, honest negative reviews or giving a competitor's produce a high rating, I'd think that was an issue - just look at Sterling and Getzmann, those were ethical lapses and in both cases Square Enix should be ashamed. But this? This was Kotaku willfully ignoring the wishes of the companies they work with, and assuming it would have no consequences. I have less than zero sympathy for them, and the fact that anyone else does is... well, it's baffling, at best.
Cory and Gray can roll their eyes at those three magical letters all they like, but let's not pretend that Kotaku stoking the fires of frivolous, trendy controversy over Assassins Creed Unity not having a playable female lead and the supposedly racist cover for Far Cry 4 might not have been a factor, if only a small one. How many times can you cryracist misogynist entitled pissbabies wolf before someone realizes the outlet you're giving free games and press passes to are doing you more harm than good, I wonder?
Notch calling Kotaku "the Fox News of gaming" was fun and all, but by far the best thing to come out of this was the creative head of Loot Crate calling Kotaku unprofessional and pointing out that their whole martyr narrative is a joke. When friggin' Loot Crate is calling you on your sh!t, it's clearly time to pack it up.
There's a lot of good stuff in here, but there's one thing that sticks out, so forgive me, DD:
I'd settle for one or the other. If they want to be a press puppet and still give us early footage and bullet points about upcoming projects, hey, that's good enough. Not what I'd like to see, but at least those who just want to know if Halo 5 has split-screen and how much the Star Wars Battlefront Season Pass cost are set.Defective_Detective said:
If they want to be real journalists and pound pavement to get us info that isn't doled out like candy, that's even better! But it's the hypocrisy of Kotaku thinking they can publish leaks and still get early review copies for free that annoys me.
Kotaku - even if they themselves didn't break any laws - were extremely unprofessional in publishing leaked documents over a year before Bethedsa had even acknowledged that the game was in development. This isn't a case of the public interests needing to know about deplorable working conditions (see: Konami) or rumors of wildly inappropriate uses of crowd-funding (see: Star Citizen), both of which at least appear justified in discussing with the public - this was a simple juicy scoop that probably borked months of planned marketing, and took the wind out of the sails for some of the bigger surprises in a sequel fans had waited nearly a decade for. In short, it screwed with Betheda's plans. Whether they should be so protective in the first place is debatable, but having waited nearly 3 years for The Phantom Pain from trailer to game, I can say that Betheda's announcement a mere 6 months before the release date has a certain appeal to it.
Does the public deserve to know that Fallout 4 exists? I... guess so? It's not like the rumor mill hadn't been spinning for a while by then anyway. I agree that the secrecy this industry tends to wallow in is absurd, and pulling those curtains back would actually go a long way in being able to forgive things like DLC, day-one patches and missing featues with the realities behind them explained and laid bare... but that's a separate discussion entirely.
Does Kotaku deserve a copy of it? Why would they? Do all popular game blogs just get copies by default? Are they "entitled" - a word this particular industry so loves using - to free, early copies no matter how hard they ignore the wishes of the publisher? Unless I'm missing something this isn't an "ethics" issue - not on Bethedsa's end, at any rate.
Sure, if Kotaku lost their early access over, say, honest negative reviews or giving a competitor's produce a high rating, I'd think that was an issue - just look at Sterling and Getzmann, those were ethical lapses and in both cases Square Enix should be ashamed. But this? This was Kotaku willfully ignoring the wishes of the companies they work with, and assuming it would have no consequences. I have less than zero sympathy for them, and the fact that anyone else does is... well, it's baffling, at best.
Cory and Gray can roll their eyes at those three magical letters all they like, but let's not pretend that Kotaku stoking the fires of frivolous, trendy controversy over Assassins Creed Unity not having a playable female lead and the supposedly racist cover for Far Cry 4 might not have been a factor, if only a small one. How many times can you cry
Notch calling Kotaku "the Fox News of gaming" was fun and all, but by far the best thing to come out of this was the creative head of Loot Crate calling Kotaku unprofessional and pointing out that their whole martyr narrative is a joke. When friggin' Loot Crate is calling you on your sh!t, it's clearly time to pack it up.
This is hilarious. If you believe this then please tell me you don't think video game writing is journalism. I don't really think it is but if I did then they were obligated to report newsworthy things like the leaks for their audience. So if you think they really shouldn't have reported the leaks then I take it you don't believe there is such a thing as video game journalism.Daelin Dwin said:
EDIT: Having read some of this thread the Kotaku salt is real. I have a feeling if this happened to some other outlets more favored by those who supported gamergate the tone of these comments would be different.
Kotaku lost their relationship with Bethesda because they published privileged information. You get to do that once, then you pay the price. That's how it works. It's not even just journalism and attaching someone's name to what they've told you off the record or printing something you know only gets revealed officially, it's everywhere. You don't see Edward Snowden complaining that the NSA doesn't run information by him anymore, because he knew the cost, that's why he took off. You get to do it once, then you pay for it.
Edit- Reading through this thread, many of you people don't seem to understand the basics of what's happening here. There is no blacklisting. I know Schreier and Carter and Rydell used the term, but that doesn't mean you should blindly parrot it. Blacklisting suggests a collusion of many or important people in an industry to freeze an individual or organisation out. When the Game Journo Pro list, featuring Nathan Greyson, Jason Schreier and Patrick Klepek, discussed not hiring Allistair Pinsof, that was blacklisting. This is Kotaku damaging their working relationships with Bethesda and Ubisoft to the point where they no longer exist. When you find communication wherein Bethesda and Ubisoft discuss with themselves and other publishers how they shouldn't give any access to Kotaku, then you have blacklisting. Right now you have people crying about being victims of their own decision making.
Edit- Reading through this thread, many of you people don't seem to understand the basics of what's happening here. There is no blacklisting. I know Schreier and Carter and Rydell used the term, but that doesn't mean you should blindly parrot it. Blacklisting suggests a collusion of many or important people in an industry to freeze an individual or organisation out. When the Game Journo Pro list, featuring Nathan Greyson, Jason Schreier and Patrick Klepek, discussed not hiring Allistair Pinsof, that was blacklisting. This is Kotaku damaging their working relationships with Bethesda and Ubisoft to the point where they no longer exist. When you find communication wherein Bethesda and Ubisoft discuss with themselves and other publishers how they shouldn't give any access to Kotaku, then you have blacklisting. Right now you have people crying about being victims of their own decision making.
And in this case they're paying for it by no longer getting free handouts. Boo-friggin'-hoo.
I'll be writing reviews for games on BasedGamer, if I want to review a specific game I have to wait for it to release and go buy it myself. Why should Kotaku be entitled to getting free early copies over anyone else? Cause they're talented writers who are passionate about gaming?! HAH!
I'll be writing reviews for games on BasedGamer, if I want to review a specific game I have to wait for it to release and go buy it myself. Why should Kotaku be entitled to getting free early copies over anyone else? Cause they're talented writers who are passionate about gaming?! HAH!
I feel like I should find this to be important and care about this in some way or another but honestly I don't. I've pretty much stopped caring about the gaming industry and gaming journalism altogether. Now all I really care about is when a game is coming out.
A news outlet didn't conform to multi billion conglomerates? Oh deary me! It's almost as if they were a news outlet...
You kids might find this shocking but that is what happens every day to real news reports, they say shit a company doesn't want heard and then companies try to pressure them with money and legal action. Of course this has almost never been seen with video games because everyone just plays by corporate rules.
"But OMG the respect and trust is gone now!" God you are naive, these people are out to serve their own needs and theirs alone, Ubi and Bethesda didn't do this because their feelings got hurt they do it to protect profits, and Kotaku did it to make a profit.
And if any side had the slightest bit of legal claim over the event this shit would have gone to court long before you heard of it.
You kids might find this shocking but that is what happens every day to real news reports, they say shit a company doesn't want heard and then companies try to pressure them with money and legal action. Of course this has almost never been seen with video games because everyone just plays by corporate rules.
"But OMG the respect and trust is gone now!" God you are naive, these people are out to serve their own needs and theirs alone, Ubi and Bethesda didn't do this because their feelings got hurt they do it to protect profits, and Kotaku did it to make a profit.
And if any side had the slightest bit of legal claim over the event this shit would have gone to court long before you heard of it.
Bethesda and Ubisoft vs Kotaku in some kind of battle over 'ethics' reminds me of what Jorge Luis Borges had to say about the Falklands War: "It's like two bald men fighting over a comb."
look it's fairly simple, you as a company get to choose who you want to work with, if someone is a renowned asshole you can blacklist him if you want, that isn't unethical and it actually has nothing to do with journalism ethics.K12 said:
journalism ethics are applied to journalists, not to companies like bathesda or ubisoft, you're thinking about business ethics with them.
either way there is obviously a counter to that, a balance of power if you will, if a company like ubisoft or bathesda decides to blacklist an outlet 2 things happen immediately:
1) the outlet can then do whatever the fuck they want without fear of precaution, like leaking inane bullshit that has no journalistic value that will only hurt the company.
2) they lose that websites audiance. which translates to lost sales.
the big issues here is kotaku is already doing 1 so if an outlet is already doing that the only fear you have in blacklisting them is losing access to their audience, here we get to the major point.
kotaku has almost no impact on game sales, it has no built in audiance, it gets lots of views, usually through click bait and overflow from the gawker network, but no real loyal userbase, nobody to stick up for them or nobody that cares for them.
kotaku has shot itself in the foot by not understanding risk management and alienating it's audience and now their crying that their foot hurts.
What he's talking about is that blacklist is a word that means a very specific thing. It does not mean that one company didn't hire you or give you coverage, it means that either a group collectively holding substantial power in an industry gets together and conspires to freeze an individual or group out of the industry or a single entity which holds substantial power in hiring does so, like the trade union of an industry or a government. If Ubisoft and Bethesda colluded on this and decided to deny Kotaku access, yes you could say they were blacklisted. Barring evidence of that, it seems more likely that Kotaku damaged their working relationships with those publishers to the point where the publishers decided to wash their hands of them.Defective_Detective said:
My issue is less that they published leaked documents. It's that they published leaked documents and don't expect the developer/publisher to respond to said leak by blacklisting them. There are plenty of sites that leak stuff and take the hit to their reputation or relationships. Kotaku has published leaks, been hit with blacklists from the offended parties, but feels like they have been wronged. In my opinion, you can't have it both ways.Amir Kondori said:
For those of you defending Kotaku, this is essentially what they had done:
Kotaku did irrecoverable damage to the industry JUST to be a pack of dicks and are getting spanked for it and crying like a poor baby. Stop trying to make them out like some lone outlet doing civil justice against a corrupt regime. They're assholes who saw short term gains at a long term loss and rushed headlong into it. Nothing more.
That's it. To make matters worse in the act of running it, now VA's are going to be damn near impossible to get into the industry because the first thing ANY dev is going to wonder is "do I trust them enough to not run to click bait sites with scripts entrusted to them?" and the response is going to be "nope."
Kotaku did irrecoverable damage to the industry JUST to be a pack of dicks and are getting spanked for it and crying like a poor baby. Stop trying to make them out like some lone outlet doing civil justice against a corrupt regime. They're assholes who saw short term gains at a long term loss and rushed headlong into it. Nothing more.
Time to give my two cents here...
First of all, Gawker and all of its affiliates should burn in hell as a principle.
Now, with that out of the way:
The move by the two publishers demonstrates the dynamics between game journos and publishers/devs while also highlighting how inept the whole dynamic is in this particular field.
Journalism 101: Any journalist needs sources in the field they are working in. A crime reporter needs several police officers as sources. A sports reporter needs several players and coaches as sources. A game journalist will need some developers and publisher agents as sources.
The sources need to be maintained while also being 'milked' for stories which have to be published in a way that won't inflict harm on the sources proper or affect the general course of an ongoing story. This is the whole concept behind source anonymity and not divulging certain aspects of ongoing criminal investigations.
A journalist of any field that goes against this basic logic will find themselves without a job soon enough. A Journalist who is successful in keeping a balance with the stories they publish and maintaining the good will of the sources is one who is worth their weight in gold. Most of the times compromises have to be made one way or the other but as a rule of thumb a journalist should know when it is worth to burn a bridge with a source and when it isn't.
What Kotaku and the two publishers did in this instance was not unethical but it highlight's the instance of Kotaku burning a bridge for very little benefit in regards to the story.
What Kotaku published was a click bait article spoiling the early game of Fallout 4. Drew some clicks to it but it hardly benefited the source which gave this information to Kotaku. The developer felt 'betrayed' in the sense that they 'showed' Kotaku privileged information in good faith that would keep the journalist's curiosity satisfied until they would reveal the game proper. The response for such a 'betrayal' is to first stop sharing insider info for yet unrevealed projects before with holding review copies.
In short I believe that Kotaku burned a bridge for a single article a variation of which would probably be welcome at a later date.
The whole issue would be an attack on journalistic ethics if lets say Kotaku did investigative journalism and actually revealed evidence that the publishers willingly didn't patch critical bugs of the game, that the developers outsourced work to a completely uncredited team or that the office conditions during development were horrid while the personnel went unpaid.
The publishers would react badly of course, perhaps even attempt a real blacklist with other publishers. But they would be completely on the wrong side since it will be seen as they trying to wash the dirt off them on public while Kotaku would get a lot of brownie points with the gaming public.
Personally I would have stopped talking to anyone from Kotaku for being a part of Gawker. Just the whole fiasco of Gawker publishing the names and addresses of gun owners of New York is beyond unethical and actually put people in danger.
First of all, Gawker and all of its affiliates should burn in hell as a principle.
Now, with that out of the way:
The move by the two publishers demonstrates the dynamics between game journos and publishers/devs while also highlighting how inept the whole dynamic is in this particular field.
Journalism 101: Any journalist needs sources in the field they are working in. A crime reporter needs several police officers as sources. A sports reporter needs several players and coaches as sources. A game journalist will need some developers and publisher agents as sources.
The sources need to be maintained while also being 'milked' for stories which have to be published in a way that won't inflict harm on the sources proper or affect the general course of an ongoing story. This is the whole concept behind source anonymity and not divulging certain aspects of ongoing criminal investigations.
A journalist of any field that goes against this basic logic will find themselves without a job soon enough. A Journalist who is successful in keeping a balance with the stories they publish and maintaining the good will of the sources is one who is worth their weight in gold. Most of the times compromises have to be made one way or the other but as a rule of thumb a journalist should know when it is worth to burn a bridge with a source and when it isn't.
What Kotaku and the two publishers did in this instance was not unethical but it highlight's the instance of Kotaku burning a bridge for very little benefit in regards to the story.
What Kotaku published was a click bait article spoiling the early game of Fallout 4. Drew some clicks to it but it hardly benefited the source which gave this information to Kotaku. The developer felt 'betrayed' in the sense that they 'showed' Kotaku privileged information in good faith that would keep the journalist's curiosity satisfied until they would reveal the game proper. The response for such a 'betrayal' is to first stop sharing insider info for yet unrevealed projects before with holding review copies.
In short I believe that Kotaku burned a bridge for a single article a variation of which would probably be welcome at a later date.
The whole issue would be an attack on journalistic ethics if lets say Kotaku did investigative journalism and actually revealed evidence that the publishers willingly didn't patch critical bugs of the game, that the developers outsourced work to a completely uncredited team or that the office conditions during development were horrid while the personnel went unpaid.
The publishers would react badly of course, perhaps even attempt a real blacklist with other publishers. But they would be completely on the wrong side since it will be seen as they trying to wash the dirt off them on public while Kotaku would get a lot of brownie points with the gaming public.
Personally I would have stopped talking to anyone from Kotaku for being a part of Gawker. Just the whole fiasco of Gawker publishing the names and addresses of gun owners of New York is beyond unethical and actually put people in danger.
Review copies and press access is basically a steady feed. A symbiotic relationships.
What Kotaku did was bite a finger off the hand that feeds so they could temporarily chew more meat.
And now they're no longer getting fed.
Please tell me where journalistic ethics are involved here?
If anything this is business ethics and very basic business ethics too:don't fuck over your business partner or he won't do business with you.
In fact...Kotaku accepting early review codes and such to begin with is more of a journalistic ethics concern than this.
As for not understanding why Gamergate would celebrate what is basically their arch nemesis and the most corrupt,unethical rag of an outlet on the internet being repeatedly kicked for their short sighted actions, that's quite silly. It is not a reformable, fixable rag. It refused to dispose of writers such as Grayson,Schreier,Hernandez and many more despite numerous ethical breaches on their part.
http://deepfreeze.it/journo.php?j=nathan_grayson
http://deepfreeze.it/journo.php?j=jason_schreier
http://deepfreeze.it/journo.php?j=patricia_hernandez
http://deepfreeze.it/journo.php?j=Patrick_Klepek
Kotaku are scum. Kotaku's article on why they haven't had contact with Ubisoft or Bethesda is speculation on their part, and massively playing the victim(OH NO WE JUST HAD TO TELL YOU FALLOUT 4 WAS COMING AND SPOIL THE OPENING LOCATION AND PREMISE,IT'S IN YOUR INTEREST THAT YOU KNOW THESE THINGS NOT IN OUR INTEREST TO GENERATE TRAFFIC AND GET CLICKS FROM IT, IT'S CALLED BEING A JOURNALIST!).
What Kotaku did was bite a finger off the hand that feeds so they could temporarily chew more meat.
And now they're no longer getting fed.
Please tell me where journalistic ethics are involved here?
If anything this is business ethics and very basic business ethics too:don't fuck over your business partner or he won't do business with you.
In fact...Kotaku accepting early review codes and such to begin with is more of a journalistic ethics concern than this.
As for not understanding why Gamergate would celebrate what is basically their arch nemesis and the most corrupt,unethical rag of an outlet on the internet being repeatedly kicked for their short sighted actions, that's quite silly. It is not a reformable, fixable rag. It refused to dispose of writers such as Grayson,Schreier,Hernandez and many more despite numerous ethical breaches on their part.
http://deepfreeze.it/journo.php?j=nathan_grayson
http://deepfreeze.it/journo.php?j=jason_schreier
http://deepfreeze.it/journo.php?j=patricia_hernandez
http://deepfreeze.it/journo.php?j=Patrick_Klepek
Kotaku are scum. Kotaku's article on why they haven't had contact with Ubisoft or Bethesda is speculation on their part, and massively playing the victim(OH NO WE JUST HAD TO TELL YOU FALLOUT 4 WAS COMING AND SPOIL THE OPENING LOCATION AND PREMISE,IT'S IN YOUR INTEREST THAT YOU KNOW THESE THINGS NOT IN OUR INTEREST TO GENERATE TRAFFIC AND GET CLICKS FROM IT, IT'S CALLED BEING A JOURNALIST!).
How does "ethics in videogame journalism" include two companies who have nothing to do with journalism? If Bethesda decides to not market their game, would that then also have to do with "ethics in videogame journalism"?
Harping on breach of ethics from videogame companies has been happening for years, favorite pass time on the internet was comparing EA to the devil a few times
Current debacle involving "ethics in videogame journalism" has to do with the bullshit performed by the gaming journalism industry, it has nothing to do with whatever shady thing EA has up its sleeves when they decide to split their game in half and sell the rest of it for twice the price. I would involve ethics in videogame journalism though when a publication runs sponsored content of Battlefront 3 without disclosing it, if a journalist is "persuaded" to talk favorably about a product, or when a journalist lies about a product to make it seem worse than it is
Harping on breach of ethics from videogame companies has been happening for years, favorite pass time on the internet was comparing EA to the devil a few times
Current debacle involving "ethics in videogame journalism" has to do with the bullshit performed by the gaming journalism industry, it has nothing to do with whatever shady thing EA has up its sleeves when they decide to split their game in half and sell the rest of it for twice the price. I would involve ethics in videogame journalism though when a publication runs sponsored content of Battlefront 3 without disclosing it, if a journalist is "persuaded" to talk favorably about a product, or when a journalist lies about a product to make it seem worse than it is
Looking at the number of comments, shouldn't the last panel be changed? Looks like a lot of people want to talk about ethics in video game journalism.
I actually see this as more of an issue of business ethics.General Torg said:
From a business standpoint, a company can decide not to work with another company (in this case Gawker). That is their right. They have no obligation to explain why they opt not to give Kotaku review copies among other privileges. Explaining why exactly they refuse to work with Kotaku opens the door up to scrutiny over whether or not that is justified, which is probably why (to my knowledge) Ubisoft and Bethesda are being quiet.
The most likely answers would be either;
A) This company is not a respectable journalism site,
B) It insists on being referred to as a coalition of bloggers, so we will treat it as such.
C) They spoiled our hype machines despite past cordial relationships.
All of these are answers that would just cause headaches for a legal team, when silence is a valid option.
Now Kotaku is arguing this is the companies not liking investigative journalism. I read the Fallout 4 stuff a while ago, and it wasn't really an investigation, it was more of a reblog imo. The relationship Kotaku enjoyed with these companies was confidential access and some free swag. Gawker cannot take either of these companies to court for revoking privileges. That is why they are called privileges, and Gawker knows the reason these privileges were revoked were because for Bethesda and Ubisoft the trust they would once have for Kotaku handling exclusive information has all but evaporated.
Being a journalist, one would have to weigh the risks on a decision like this. On the one hand, the public would like to know this stuff (even if said publication had no reliable way to verify the information), on the other hand, why bite the hand that feeds you? I mean Kotaku wasn't revealing anything that Bethesda or Ubisoft weren't going to release to the public on their own terms anyway.
And I really don't see how this could be conflated with The Escapist's Star Citizen articles, when I think we all know that if the devs had their way in that case, the former employees would never have their grievances amplified.
I could appreciate Kotaku's actions if it was taking some sort of moral stand, but this wasn't a moral stand. It was just bad business. Stupid business even, and now Kotaku wants paint this as a journalistic issue so they can have a do-over.
Am I missing anything here?
Yeah, but because its a bad publisher "we didn't care enough."General Torg said:
So, a publisher blacklists a journo outlet. This ultimately makes the publisher bad. What happens next?
Good Journo:
- Tells people s/he was blacklisted.
- People are upset someone who does good work has their job made harder, and are pissed with the publisher.
- The publisher loses reputation, and possibly sales because of their actions.
The blacklist almost turns back on the publisher.
Bad Journo:
- Tells people s/he was blacklisted.
- People don't care as the journo has not done good work in the past. However, they are pissed with the publisher.
- The publisher loses reputation, and possibly sales because of their actions.
The blacklist almost turns back on the publisher.
Yes, many have been busy celebrating about a bad publisher getting their just desserts- but many are still pissed at the publisher for blacklisting.
Ultimately, blacklisting just makes you more aware of what publishers not to trust.
I will support good journos, but bad ones can fade off into obscurity.
Just like I will support good publishers and devs, but bad can fade off into obscurity.
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death."
I disapprove of poor journos, but I will demand publishers do good practices.
But defending Kotaku? When their past actions have been made up for.
Something I don't quite understand; Deepfreeze cites blacklisting as an unethical act when those figures may have had a hand in it. Is it unethical when it's them, but not unethical when it targets Kotaku? That seems inconsistent.Doomskander said:
That site gives flimsy or otherwise shitty justifications for naming figures; the "sensationalism" tag seems to be used almost exclusively to target articles they merely disagree with, as I've argued before. It's a poor choice to bring it up in support of an ethical argument.