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.
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.