General Torg said:
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.
Yeah, but because its a bad publisher "we didn't care enough."
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.