John Funk said:
You have potentially the most broad view of libel I have seen in quite some time. Just because you say it is, doesn't actually make it so.
I'm sorry, but my view of libel is the by-the-book view. Throwing open accusations on a written publication without a shred of proof. This is what libel is.
libel [ˈlaɪbəl]
1. (Law) Law
a. the publication of defamatory matter in permanent form, as by a written or printed statement, picture, etc.
b. the act of publishing such matter
There isn't much to argue about this.
What Ashcraft is doing, is saying, "Here are the facts: Famitsu gave Peace Walker a 40/40. Famitsu's scores are incredibly influential in a title's success in Japan, a rare perfect score exponentially more so. Famitsu and its founder are also incredibly involved in the game's promotional material, and in fact in the game itself. I, personally, find something suspicious about this."
funny how you try to make it sound milder my changing by a LOT his wording.
I'll do something much simpler, and will quote directly:
"Do Not Trust This Magazine's Review Scores"
"the review appears bought"
"It needlessly dirties up what could very well be a great game"
"Peace Walker is better than this. Hideo Kojima is better than this. Famitsu, it seems, is not."
That's
very different from how you worded in in a blatant and intentional attempt to make it sound milder, my dear devil's advocate
That is an opinion. That is drawing a conclusion based on the facts at hand. That is not libel.
I'm afraid no. It implies (actually it's not even implied, it's declared) the fact that there have been underhanded dealings (which isn't proven at all), that's not opinion, that's an
accusation, that's what's called libel.
How is this different from people saying, "Well, Gamespot had advertising for Kane & Lynch, Jeff Gerstmann gave it a bad score, and Gerstmann was fired. Huh???"
It wouldn't be different than writing on a publication "Well, Gamespot had advertising for Kane & Lynch, Jeff Gerstmann gave it a bad score, and Gerstmann was fired.
Therefore the publisher of K&L and Gamespot got an underhanded dealing to get Gestermann fired as a compensation for the damage done by the interview"
The bolded part is very, very different from "Huh???"
Famitsu was, at some point, involved with the game itself. Famitsu appears in the game. Its founder and head is in lots of the promotional material. That's a bit deeper of a relationship than advertisers usually have.
A bit deeper? How exactly? Famitsu is the most visible magazine in Japan, do you really think the advantage they receive from a Tie In is bigger than what a site like Kotaku gets from advertisement that allows them to survive and being profitable? Please.
All Ashcraft is saying is that it's incredibly shady of Famitsu not to even mention that they've been so involved with MGSPW in their perfect review as a disclaimer. The onus is on Famitsu here, not Konami.
Not really, Ashcraft didn't say that. He said that the
"review appears bought". Which is a whole different cup of tea.
But I do find funny how you continue to minimize what ashcraft said in order to try and defend a completely unprofessional behavioir.
Also. There's nothing to be disclosed. A full disclosure is needed or warranted when there is something to be disclosed. The tie-in has been publicly announced and slapped on everyone's face.
