BlackListed

[ThatOtherGirl]

Nothing shady was done by Bethesda or Ubisoft here.

But Kotaku did do something scummy. This is one case where I come firmly down on the corporation side. Kotaku deserved to be blacklisted and I am glad that it happened.

 

[ChaoGuy2006]

How come you guys never made a comic when GG was being ignored?

 

[Sexual Harassment Panda]

A company has responsibility to it's customers, they have no responsibility to the revenue streams of journalists
Kotaku aren't just writing about what happened though, they're portraying themselves as hard-hitting journalistic heroes.

And journalists have no responsibility to companies and their marketing departments, yet some people here seem to think that they should do as directed by said companies and marketing departments unless its arbitrarily "important" enough to warrant not doing so. And it's especially troubling because, if a publisher is willing to just cut all ties with a group of journalists over something trivial like publishing leaked documents about games-in-development, it probably won't be any better if it was over something more important.

Well isnt that some bending backwards logic at work here...

No one has said any of what you accuse them of.

It was repeatedly stated that kotaku had the right to publish those leaks.

And it was said that Bethesda and Ubi do infact have the right to cut business relationships with kotaku.

Neither holds any moral or ethical obligations towards the other.

YET! Kotaku claims that bethesda and ubi do infact HAVE THE DUTY of keeping business relationships with kotaku... because kotaku all of a sudden are now "real journalists"

No matter the fact that "real journalists" would never beg for freebies and exclusive access to the people they cover!

What is it now? Kotaku being "real journalists" or "industry mouthpiece"? You cant be both at the same time for crying out loud!

If kotaku claims it has put on the big boy journalist pants now, then why the hell are they whining about being "blacklisted" and no longer receiving free stuff?

Kotaku wants bethesda and ubisoft to keep bending over and getting railed over the desk, but Beth and ubi are not going to take that shit anymore and now kotaku is crying to their readers how evil those two publishers are because those two have decided to no longer get fucked over by kotaku.

Wich would all be perfectly fine if kotaku wasnt such a ***** about it. Instead of owning up to their claim of being journalists they suddenly realize that being a journalist ISNT all gummidrops and icecream and want back suckling on the teets of big publisher review copies.

Kotaku are being the hypocrits here. But thats hardly anything new.

Heres the thing:

Game journalism has been called out for receiving free stuff from industry giants for a looooooooooooooong time, and yes review copies are amongst them. Review copies are a "nice thing to have" but if you dont get them you do NOT have the right to get them. They are a privilige granted by the publisher because the publisher deems sending you a review copy a positive thing. If the publisher decides sending you a review copy is no longer in his interest then theres only one thing to do for you..

DEAL WITH IT!


Actually this whole "blacklisting" thing is a net gain for gamers and i hope it happens to all the big games news sites... because then we would finaly get back to honest review scores and no longer have to deal with bullshit reviews that only exist to please the big publishers.

They're mad about review copies because it means they can't be among the 1st wave of reviews, which might well damage the potential clicks. Sucks for them, but I'm not sure what you can really do. Nobody is really owed these early review copies. They're distributed with the intention of gaining attention for the product, hopefully positive attention.

I think it's maybe a little petty to cut them off from review copies, but if I were running a development house I might suggest to employees not to talk to Kotaku. I think their not willing to respond to inquiry is fair. You'd only talk to outlets that you would trust to give you a fair shake/represent what you're saying honestly. From what I have seen of Kotaku's reporting in regards to ubisoft, I could see why they wouldn't want to talk to them, and they're not obligated to or anything either.

I could see how this could set a bad precedent, but I also don't believe that Kotaku is some untouchable mainstay of the industry. They have to decide what their business is going to be and then manage their relationships appropriately. If they fail to achieve a workable balance, that's really on them.

 

[TheMysteriousGX]

Did, did you guys read the same Kotaku article I did?

Because I don;t remember whinging. I don;t remember Kotaku saying it should get review copies.

I remember Kotaku saying they had questions as to why their review was late, that they didn't get review copies, and this is why they think that is.

Then again, it helps that I actually read the damn thing.

 

[Erttheking]

I'm curious. Six months later, when everyone has forgotten this happened, lets replace Bethesda with EA and Kotaku with a games journalist people don't hate on principle and see if the reactions are any different.

 

[Erttheking]

Did, did you guys read the same Kotaku article I did?

Because I don;t remember whinging. I don;t remember Kotaku saying it should get review copies.

I remember Kotaku saying they had questions as to why their review was late, that they didn't get review copies, and this is why they think that is.

Then again, it helps that I actually read the damn thing.

We live in a day and age where people aren't interested in arguing against what people actually say, they're more interested in attacking fictional overblown stereotypes of what people say.

 

[C14N]

Good. Ideally, every single site will get blacklisted by every single dev. Then maybe we could finally get actual journalism and criticism instead of press releases, hype and tentative symbiotic relationships.

 

[Silvanus]

The blacklisting cited in deepfreeze is actual blacklisting. People with the power to hire Allistair Pinsof for work conspired on the Game Journo Pros mailing list to not do so. Bethesda and Ubisoft severing their working relationship with Kotaku is not blacklisting. There is no collusion to freeze them out of the entire industry or even a portion of it. There is simply two companies individually deciding that they are not going to work with Kotaku. Do you understand now?

I understand, but that still seems essentially inconsistent. In both cases, those in question are exercising the right not to engage with someone, and their power extends no further than their own actions, AFAIK. In both cases, "collusion" goes as far as discussing the choices they are allowed to make. If one is unethical (and it may well be!), the other is, too. There's little difference of substance.

Well for one Deepfreeze counts journalistic blacklist as an ethical violation because it is a site about journalistic ethics not business ethics. And if Deepfreeze would view Kotaku being blacklisted as good or bad(it's made no stance,and likely won't as it exists to just catalog journalistic malpractice) matters little in me using it to show the ''quality'' of work Kotaku's writers are known for.

Your second point seems to lead the conversation away from the journalists itself into discussing Deepfreeze.it minutia,for which I am sure there is a thread. Deepfreeze catalogs bad practices and then gives it's own opinion on what sort of criteria of ethical breach it would constitute as. It is perfectly fine if you disagree with that opinion, however do you disagree with all of the things Deepfreeze has documented as ethical breaches?

How much of it do you think the Kotaku journalists are innocent off? A quarter?A half?All of it? Because a lot of entries are pretty clear cut ethical violations,and as such me linking Deepfreeze to show them was merely convenience.

I could individually use separate entries from those deepfreeze pages to prove my point instead, if you want to take the lengthy route.

That's not necessary; I've drawn my own conclusions on Gawker and the whole mess already. I don't disagree with some of the entries on Deepfreeze; however, I consider Deepfreeze to be as guilty of shitty conduct as several of its targets. You're right that there's another thread for that. Here, I was primarily bringing it up because it listed blacklisting as an unethical act, but was brought up in defence of essentially the same act.

 

[Atmos Duality]

Good. Ideally, every single site will get blacklisted by every single dev. Then maybe we could finally get actual journalism and criticism instead of press releases, hype and tentative symbiotic relationships.

But that would mean gaming might get some actual STANDARDS in its publications for the first time in...well practically ever, and we all know that we can't have that.

Ethical Journalism is gaming's unicorn; but soon as one is shown to exist, it'll be open season!
Think of the metaphorical unicorns!

 

[Sticky]

One other thing I wanted to add: People are forgetting that this isn't one-off behavior from Kotaku. This is consistent with a pattern of abuse of their 'journalism' label that has been going on for years.

Kotaku has never given developers a fair share. They've never even tried to do anything except create clickbait.

The last article written about Ubisoft before this incident was when Kotaku trapped one of Ubisoft's producers in a room and started bombarding him with loaded questions meant to destroy his reputation [http://i.imgur.com/8L8x0N7.png]. Then they wrote that article which boils down to "Pfft, they didn't want to answer my loaded questions? I guess that means they have something to hide."

This isn't how journalists act. Certainly not how any journalist acts that wants to remain a credible source of news. If I were Ubisoft; I would have cut ties with Kotaku after that article came out slandering one of my employees for not wanting to answer a series of humiliating questions to someone that they knew would immediately try to turn them into clickbait.

So this idea that Kotaku has not had this coming for a while is nonsense.

 

[whatever55]

There's little difference of substance.

dude you as a person get to decide who you will and wont interact with, same goes for companies and that's fine.
there is a huge difference between an individual making a personal decision and saying: "this person is a dick i shall not talk to him again" and that same individual (or company) saying: "i do not like this individual, not only will i cut contacts with him, i will use my connections to make sure he's blocked out of the entire industry and tell anyone that ever think about hiring or talking to him that he should stop."

it's the difference between not talking to someone and throwing someone in solitary, it's a big substantive fucking difference.

 

[Silvanus]

dude you as a person get to decide who you will and wont interact with, same goes for companies and that's fine.
there is a huge difference between an individual making a personal decision and saying: "this person is a dick i shall not talk to him again" and that same individual (or company) saying: "i do not like this individual, not only will i cut contacts with him, i will use my connections to make sure he's blocked out of the entire industry and tell anyone that ever think about hiring or talking to him that he should stop."

it's the difference between not talking to someone and throwing someone in solitary, it's a big substantive fucking difference.

We're talking about a group of people-- who do not comprise "the entire industry", or anywhere near it-- suggesting to one another that they should not engage. Not forcing anybody, but exercising their own powers, which go no further than their own engagement.

You can call it shady, sure; I'm not arguing with that. I'd tend to agree. But the fundamentals there are very much similar. You're just describing one with much more verbosity than you are the other, to give the impression there's a gulf between them.

 

[Lightspeaker]

I really don't get this sort of idea. So, unless it's something customers "need to know" or is something deemed important by people who have nothing but utter contempt for Kotaku, a website should make sure to march in lock step with what publishers and their marketing departments want. Apparently, what customers wanted, going by the generated clicks Kotaku received, is irrelevant, because Kotaku should be a loyal servant of the publisher unless something "important" comes along.

If they want to maintain a good working relationship with the publisher then yes. Of course. Are you expecting any other answer? Frankly I'm not sure if you're sincerely making your points or are being a complete parody here; because you're being dishonest and misleading.

Look...this whole situation is completely normal with respect to basic real-world journalism. You maintain your sources of information and ONLY burn your bridges with them if the story is important enough or powerful enough that you know you're morally in the right (and thus will come out of it ahead at the end of the day).

See also: The example I gave a few pages back with respect to Alex Ferguson and the BBC. The BBC realised that story was important enough that it was worth risking their relationship with Alex Ferguson over it and thus released the story. There was a backlash from the manager himself, but ultimately it resulted in the whole suspicious relationship they'd reported on being broken up.

If Kotaku had been reporting on Bethesda forcing its employees to work a hundred hours a week whilst being whipped then they might have had a point. Reporting on something as frivolous as a game in development and in such a way as to harm the publisher's own plans means they don't.

 

[Fox12]

snip

big difference between choosing not to stock it ever, and caving to pressure based on a false premise.

Not really, they're just listening to their customers opinions. Apparently they decided that GTA didn't match the image they wanted for their store, a decision that is consistent with their past actions concerning music and film. Is it really a surprise that Target decided to cater to the soccer mom demographic instead of the hardcore gamer demographic? Heaven forbid a single chain decides not to carry a single game in a single country. If they decided to bring the game back due to outrage, I doubt you'd be complaining about Target "caving into pressure." You'd probably call it a victory for free speech, or something. You're just upset that your demographic wasn't catered to in this specific circumstance.

Besides, I see no difference. Either way the game is unavailable for purchase. They aren't limiting your options. If you want the game, go somewhere else. It's not banned, it's not illegal, there's no censorship going on. They just decided not to stock an item at their store. I don't understand how people are surprised by this.

 

[Czann]

"(pro tip: Fuck Gawker)"

I can't agree more, guys! I can't agree more!