BlackListed

[Silvanus]

Odd. You just used an example of how society purges people from society for committing crimes by locking them away and occasionally killing a few. But somehow my bringing it up is somehow irrational and beyond reason. Your rather sanitized view of the criminal justice system compared to the obvious reality belies a sense of privilege on the matter I have never known.

I brought it up to demonstrate how we use the phrase "allow to persist", and how that usage does not in any way imply a belief that we can somehow eradicate something entirely. A point apparently lost on you. The other inferences you've taken-- something about my "sanitised view" of the justice system, even though I didn't mention anything about my view of the justice system whatsoever-- have just been conjured up from your own imagination.

If you're going to merely hammer on with the rubbish about me "purging" people, then there's really no conversation to be had. It's just a bizarre, brainless accusation, a product entirely of your own creation. There's nothing else to say on it; you simply made it up. So, we can discuss the actual topic; or if you really do prefer to discuss stuff you've plucked out of thin air, then you can discuss it alone.

 

[medv4380]

OK, lets talk ethics.

First, the 'story' following the comic fails at ethics. It assumes that Kotaku is claiming the truth, and then fails to mention the counter point is that Ubisoft and Bethesda have refused to comment. Maybe they're blacklisted maybe they're not. But accepting Kotaku as the Gods Word Truth without evidence is journalistically unethical. What we have is Kotaku believes it is blacklisted, and it believes that it blacklisted for specific reasons. We have no proof that they are blacklisted, and we have no proof that those are the reasons. What you have is a conspiracy of silence followed by a conspiracy theory. There are other possible reasons they may be blacklisted from all the GG stuff to giving Kotaku access may not be the best way to get to their target market. It could be both signed up with the same marketing firm that may have determined that Kotaku appeals to niche Otaku audience that overlaps with other outlets so much that they don't need them. It could be that the publishers have decided to relegate Kotaku to the purposful 'leak' outlet, and blacklisting it just to make it seem legit. The evidence is lacking for any real conclusion to be viewed as valid, and it's unethical to present it otherwise.

As for publishing leaks it is journalistically gray, and tends to go into the unethical area really easily. The government has been known to purposefully leak potential plans to see if there is any public backlash, and then scrub them if it isn't politically viable. This is why an ethical journalist attempts to confirm the leak though a second named source. This doesn't appear to be the case for kotaku who is leaning on the 'anonymous' leaks that gets real journalists in trouble over time.

For real journalists:

Not confirming the other side of the story leaks to unethical breaches like accusing a frat of rape when even the most basic of follow ups reveals it to be wholly fake. See Rolling Stones for details.

Publishing of leaked government intel can allow politicians the opportunity to custom tailor the truth, and possibly sell us on a war that otherwise we wouldn't have necessarily supported. Iraq war anyone?

The consequences for Real Journalists ethical breaches makes the argument a bit clearer as to why it is unethical conduct. Game Journalism has been so entrenched as an unethical marketing arm of the Game Industry that they can't be bothered with the more nuanced unethical journalistic behavior.

At least the consequences for unethical game journalism is minimal compared to real journalism.

 

[Nailzzz]

Odd. You just used an example of how society purges people from society for committing crimes by locking them away and occasionally killing a few. But somehow my bringing it up is somehow irrational and beyond reason. Your rather sanitized view of the criminal justice system compared to the obvious reality belies a sense of privilege on the matter I have never known.

I brought it up to demonstrate how we use the phrase "allow to persist", and how that usage does not in any way imply a belief that we can somehow eradicate something entirely. A point apparently lost on you. The other inferences you've taken-- something about my "sanitised view" of the justice system, even though I didn't mention anything about my view of the justice system whatsoever-- have just been conjured up from your own imagination.

If you're going to merely hammer on with the rubbish about me "purging" people, then there's really no conversation to be had. It's just a bizarre, brainless accusation, a product entirely of your own creation. There's nothing else to say on it; you simply made it up. So, we can discuss the actual topic; or if you really do prefer to discuss stuff you've plucked out of thin air, then you can discuss it alone.

All right. Lets go back to your statement then: "If we ignore the existence of racism and homophobia, and refuse to acknowledge them for what they are, then we simply allow them to persist".

Please explain to me how acknowledging these things will in any way not allow them to persist? If my idea that this will ultimately result in purges is so off the mark, then this should be a simple question to answer.

 

[Silvanus]

All right. Lets go back to your statement then: "If we ignore the existence of racism and homophobia, and refuse to acknowledge them for what they are, then we simply allow them to persist".

Please explain to me how acknowledging these things will in any way not allow them to persist?

I did not say that acknowledging them alone is enough to combat them. It's a prerequisite. We cannot address an issue if we pretend it does not exist.

NB: I'm just going to cut and ignore any sections about "purging" from now on. It's just noise.

 

[Nailzzz]

All right. Lets go back to your statement then: "If we ignore the existence of racism and homophobia, and refuse to acknowledge them for what they are, then we simply allow them to persist".

Please explain to me how acknowledging these things will in any way not allow them to persist?

I did not say that acknowledging them alone is enough to combat them. It's a prerequisite. We cannot address an issue if we pretend it does not exist.

NB: I'm just going to cut and ignore any sections about "purging" from now on. It's just noise.

Then what is your solution? Pretty basic question. Still waiting for a straight honest answer. Or are you just going to continue to clutch your pearls?

 

[Silvanus]

Then what is your solution? Pretty basic question. Still waiting for a straight honest answer.

Well, you hadn't actually asked me that question straight before, so of course you'd be waiting a while. A little ludicrous to imply I've been avoiding a question I was never actually asked straight.

I would advocate an educational campaign on the effects of prejudice and differences in schools, along with a framework of support (trained counsellors, for example, or support groups outside of the education system). Backed up with robust hate-crime legislation and charitable efforts to tackle the fallout: homelessness, suicide, depression, abuse.

EDIT: This is getting wildly off-topic, now. If you're finished, I'd be more than happy to end this now.

 

[Lightknight]

This is ethics involving game journalism. But it isn't necessarily ethics "in" gaming journalism. Game journalists aren't doing something inherently unethical here. They caught wind of a story and reported it. So instead this is a question of ethics in game publishing. You can extrapolate some ethics in gaming journalism from this if you consider the ramifications of the threat of blacklisting on journalists willingness to report the truth, but this still comes down to journalists doing the best they can with a lemon. It's not like bad games aren't still negatively reviewed.

 

[Nailzzz]

Then what is your solution? Pretty basic question. Still waiting for a straight honest answer.

Well, you hadn't actually asked me that question straight before, so of course you'd be waiting a while. A little ludicrous to imply I've been avoiding a question I was never actually asked straight.

I would advocate an educational campaign on the effects of prejudice and differences in schools, along with a framework of support (trained counsellors, for example, or support groups outside of the education system). Backed up with robust hate-crime legislation and charitable efforts to tackle the fallout: homelessness, suicide, depression, abuse.

EDIT: This is getting wildly off-topic, now. If you're finished, I'd be more than happy to end this now.

I asked you the question in post 408. Not even a page away.

Your proposal sounds very similar to the DARE campaign. Seems likely to produce very similar results. And for largely the same reasons. Namely being a colossal misunderstanding of the nature of why people engage in these behaviors. If anything, I expect such measures to help proliferate the very thing they claim to be combating. You would have been better off supporting purges.

 

[runic knight]

I think this is far enough to call it, the topic obvious does have a lot of people wanting to discuss it, even if it isn't actually "ethics in games journalism". So the joke fails on all possible angles. Besides it being wrong about both the actual topic, as well as about there being no one wanting to talk about the topic, the comic was being pretty blatant in attention grabbing (controversy baiting)itself. Over 400 posts on the topic in this thread alone, plus it was active topic in another thread as well.

Maybe the room was just empty because everyone was at home on their computers trying to talk about the topic?

 

[Silvanus]

I asked you the question in post 408. Not even a page away.

I don't even know how else to say this: no you didn't. The post is right there for anybody to see that you did not do that.

In post 408, you asked;

Please explain to me how acknowledging these things will in any way not allow them to persist?

...Which, of course, nobody had claimed. That was the only thing asked; just another tiresome strawman. So, no, you didn't ask me what I would do. That's just a straightforward lie.

[...] purges.

Have fun discussing this alone!

 

[iller3]

*comic shows empty room & tumlrweeds*
*actual forum thread is 400+ posts*

... I ..... I really hope this comic didn't mean to imply that gamers were expected to defend Kotaku for practicing "journalism". I read that "Journalism"... leaking ETA's and other click bait for the sake of getting the "Scoop first" like they were CNN or something...