Rutabaga Rising

[Thunderous Cacophony]

Also, that's totally not what the Joker would do.

I just grabbed the first Batman villain that came into my head for the obvious counterpoint to Susan-as-Batman; I don't know his rogue's gallery well enough to say who would be more appropriate, but hopefully the intent was clear.

 

[Sigmund Av Volsung]

Anything that prepares people for criticism and cross-reference really. Journalism would be good for the law side of things, but even stuff like History can give a person perspective into objective evaluations, collaboration and scrutiny.

And a man can dream, can't he? ;_;

I don't see that happening for a number of reasons. Not the least of which being there isn't much in the way of a legitimate gaming press to begin with. "Games journalism" has grown up alongside the industry as more a hype man than any sort of actual critical or investigative work. Nintendo Power was one of the big influences on the rise of "games journalism," and I think you're still seeing that influence today. And mostly, that's what the community seems to want.

Until it doesn't go their way.

But what do you mean the "law" side of things? All portions of a publication have to deal with legal issues, and being a journalist doesn't specifically make you a legal authority.

in any case, I can't see actual journalism or criticism going over well in gaming circles. I won't even touch the elephant in the room, but when people flip out because the game they like got a 9, imagine how they'd feel when it got a 6. Jimmies would be rustled, tables would be flipped, and jobs would be threatened.

In regards to copyright law, disclosure, legal practices available to journalists etc.

And that last part is why review scores should go the way of the Dodo. Up to $60 is on the table in a review, and people just skip over all the evaluation to a shiny number at the end >_>

 

[Xman490]

Susan Arendt was the editor we needed, but not the one we deserved. So we'll keep searching for one as strong as her, settling for ethically questionable ones who somehow indirectly convinced "Movie"Bob Chipman and Jim Sterling to leave our at-least-once-humble community.

 

[Something Amyss]

In regards to copyright law, disclosure, legal practices available to journalists etc.

Copyright law and legal practices aren't a "journalism" thing. Disclosure is set by ethics standards, which are not legal. They're set by the publication, parent company, or said group agrees to join a standards group. These standards are opt-in, often have low entry bars, and are not enforceable.

More to the point, I find this somewhat unreasonable as a journalistic burden. Even smaller publications have legal departments or consult on legality externally, because it's unrealistic to expect a journalist to be that informed on laws. Similarly, while a journalist can agree to ethical standards, disclosure is (in my experience and that of people I know) generally an editorial call. And there's disclosure without public disclosure, ie disclosing to an editor.

And that last part is why review scores should go the way of the Dodo. Up to $60 is on the table in a review, and people just skip over all the evaluation to a shiny number at the end >_>

Review scores aren't the problem. You don't have similar problems with other media. Games might be up to 60 dollars, or you can be risking hundreds of dollars on a box set for movies/music/TV. Metacritic is still a thing for other media.

And if you think that it's the scores that are the issue, remember that people don't bring up Carolyn Petit's score when they ***** about her GTA review. They bring up that she "hated" it for sexism and that she's "a man." Only one of those things relates to the article, and it's not particularly true. The other one isn't, either, but gender identity arguments on gaming sites are slowly killing my soul. The point being, the score doesn't even come up most of the time. Though, as a 9/10, I'm sure it was "literal Hitlers."

People called for her job over this, even though it was a small portion of the review.

 

[Something Amyss]

Susan Arendt was the editor we needed, but not the one we deserved. So we'll keep searching for one as strong as her, settling for ethically questionable ones who somehow indirectly convinced "Movie"Bob Chipman and Jim Sterling to leave our at-least-once-humble community.

Does that mean she's going to have to fight some weird dude in a mask and then fake her own death?

Because that's a rough life. She deserves better.

 

[Tohron]

Interesting image reversal for someone who previously showed up on a billboard saying "All men are rapists". I wonder if that's going to come up later in this arc.

 

[Sigmund Av Volsung]

In regards to copyright law, disclosure, legal practices available to journalists etc.

Copyright law and legal practices aren't a "journalism" thing. Disclosure is set by ethics standards, which are not legal. They're set by the publication, parent company, or said group agrees to join a standards group. These standards are opt-in, often have low entry bars, and are not enforceable.

More to the point, I find this somewhat unreasonable as a journalistic burden. Even smaller publications have legal departments or consult on legality externally, because it's unrealistic to expect a journalist to be that informed on laws. Similarly, while a journalist can agree to ethical standards, disclosure is (in my experience and that of people I know) generally an editorial call. And there's disclosure without public disclosure, ie disclosing to an editor.

And that last part is why review scores should go the way of the Dodo. Up to $60 is on the table in a review, and people just skip over all the evaluation to a shiny number at the end >_>

Review scores aren't the problem. You don't have similar problems with other media. Games might be up to 60 dollars, or you can be risking hundreds of dollars on a box set for movies/music/TV. Metacritic is still a thing for other media.

And if you think that it's the scores that are the issue, remember that people don't bring up Carolyn Petit's score when they ***** about her GTA review. They bring up that she "hated" it for sexism and that she's "a man." Only one of those things relates to the article, and it's not particularly true. The other one isn't, either, but gender identity arguments on gaming sites are slowly killing my soul. The point being, the score doesn't even come up most of the time. Though, as a 9/10, I'm sure it was "literal Hitlers."

People called for her job over this, even though it was a small portion of the review.

They are essential practices, but Journalism courses and degrees familiarise and help students internalise those principles. SuperBunnyHop is a fantastic example, and it shines through all of his work and I believe it's precisely because of said qualification.

It's not asking them to practice law or memorise it a la Law degrees, but to have a tangible understanding of it beyond what we already have, such as relationships to sources. Maybe not necessarily law then in retrospect, but even a smidgen of comprehension of copyright law would help clear up a lot of problems, especially in new media like YouTube. It's not about practising it, but having respect for and understanding of what you're dealing with. Journalistic practices and law go hand in hand:

In almost every circumstance, a journalist will need to:

Work long hours
Carry an unpredictable schedule
Be able to ask difficult questions, often in an emotionally charged situation
Follow current events, always looking for a story opportunity
Be able to develop a source
Pitch story ideas to editors and producers
Attend news conferences
Stay up to date with privacy, contempt and defamation laws

source: http://www.journalismdegree.com/journalist-job-description/

And whilst review scores aren't the main problem, they're a pretty large part of the problem. Movies don't cost nearly as much as games do; you don't have to buy a machine dedicated to gaming upfront nor do you have to accept $60 as a standard. They are also way shorter, so if you wasted time and money on a bad movie, it doesn't sting nearly as bad as say, spending $60 on a bad game that you played for umpteen hours. Also piracy of other platforms is much more commonplace, so if a movie doesn't grab your interest or you don't want to spend money on it, you could just pirate it later. This is especially endemic for music.

Therefore that sort of accessibility works well with said media. It's quicker, and less demanding than video games. Review scores work there.

And yes, the sense of investment that a lot of gamers have towards their games is problematic, but that brings things back to what I said initially: there's a lack of professionalism in games journalism. There's no respect for journos, and that's because they literally are just other gamers. Gamers who may have spent more time thinking and writing about games than other people, but still on the same tier. There's no real qualifications separating them from everyone else, so scrutinising them is a lot easier, especially when we have Let's Plays where literally anyone can have a platform to talk about games.

Then there's also the fact that GTA V reviews were followed by ravenous hordes of maniacal fanboys and you get the perfect shitstorm. Especially with the extra spice of discussing gender. However, that last part I believe is just growing pains.

 

[Major_Tom]

I would take the quite competence of Susan Arendt over that of the polemic, of how shall we say, a former editor with name in common with a Yugoslav dictator.

Um, is it Rudi? Maybe Novak? Oh, I bet it's Walter.

 

[Ukomba]

private criticism in general, is far more vulnerable to what are considered the core problems with traditional games journalism: bias, pandering, clickbait, full blown journalistic ethical violations.

This line is funnier than the comic. Tell me, how can Private Criticism violate journalistic ethics? As private criticism, there is an innate understanding that it's the opinion of one person and therefor obviously biased to that one persons beliefs. There's nothing wrong with an private person having a bias, especially since it's usually obvious what that bias is. Also, anyone who's got a large following probably did it by having a set gimmick, and would be unlikely to change that gimmick to pander.


I've never seen any Youtube video with more clickbaity than actual news sights like AOL (huffingtonpost).

 

[Hoplon]

I wonder if I could get away with stealing the punchline and using it in the "come up with the most flamewar-causing thread title" thread...

In terms of the post-comic blurb, I think what a lot of people are worried about is that for every Batman there's a bevy of Jokers teaching young writers how to follow the rules the corps lay down so the institution they are working for can get free stuff and access to private events (to say what the company wants you to say). I agree that it's easy for lone journalists to be corrupted, but it's a lot harder for, say, EA to find and pay off 150 different reviewers and bloggers to give a positive review to the new Battlefront than it would be for them to call up the top 10 gaming websites, talk to the editor that they've known for years, and subtly push for a better score.

It's definitely not impossible for those lone journalists to be corrupted, and there's other pitfalls specific to going it alone, but it diffuses the ability of a company to do something quickly and make it appear unanimous.

Except Warner bros did exactly that for the Shadow of Morodor release, anyone that wouldn't agree was shut out.

 

[NinjaDeathSlap]

When I wrote that I was thinking of Roosterteeth and how they've changed over their career. Some of the guys started as Drunk Gamers and wrote whatever they felt like because no one really noticed or cared about them. Flash forward 15 years, and they're hosting the Youtube coverage of E3 and have The Know, which sometimes feels like it exists to reprint stories from PR firms. There can be (and often is) dissenting opinion, and they openly talk about how they are fans rather than an objective source of news and reviews, but it still puts me on notice. Maybe it's just the Canadian in me talking, but I can see where people are being polite and toning down what they might want to say for the sake of what they should say.

To be fair, I don't think RoosterTeeth have ever put on any pretensions of being a serious source of objective journalism. They're fans making fan content, and on its own merits there's nothing wrong with that.

OT: I definitely think some people are a little too enamoured with the youtube community. On both plains there are those with and without integrity, but I think we'd all do batter to keep in mind that the flip-side of something being 'indie' is also that it's usually completely unregulated.

 

[The Wooster]

private criticism in general, is far more vulnerable to what are considered the core problems with traditional games journalism: bias, pandering, clickbait, full blown journalistic ethical violations.

This line is funnier than the comic. Tell me, how can Private Criticism violate journalistic ethics? As private criticism, there is an innate understanding that it's the opinion of one person and therefor obviously biased to that one persons beliefs.

As opposed to mainstream reviews which are written by teams of elves. Yes. I see your point.

 

[Sigmund Av Volsung]

Them skulls. It seems like skull is the mortal enemy of the Sarkeesian.

Get humanities and arts students then.

Not like the majority of them will have many good job opportunities after they finish higher education

At least here they'd do something at least a bit relevant to their qualifications.

Except when people do that it leads to bitching about Polygon and Kotaku. They post what they want, and while they're often criticised for being shit, they get more hate nowadays for having the "wrong" opinions.

They are essential practices, but Journalism courses and degrees familiarise and help students internalise those principles. SuperBunnyHop is a fantastic example, and it shines through all of his work and I believe it's precisely because of said qualification.

Actually George pretty much stated that his qualifications are meaningless and that the only thing he got out of his education is connections with the people who had a hand in his education.


Thats not really a new thing by the way. I've met a number of folk personally whose education go back decades that say that a journalism degree is usually only worth the paper that its printed on, with the only common exception being when somebody with few scruples wants to hire you solely so that they can use your degree as a shield from criticism.

Kotaku and Polygon's problems are an attitude of rejection towards games overall and single-mindedness whilst still working within the same systems as everyone else.

Not a fair comparison imo, especially not from people who talk about "politics in the Philippines" during a press event. They follow Vice's example of journalism, though without the camera to back up their politics.

So just like the Vice web articles then.

And the point still stands. Qualifications "like" journalism are useful, and would help make games journalism not a job people do when there's literally nothing else but make it something that they actually want to apply themselves to and work on. George says it doesn't make a difference, but his presentation is marginally different to anyone else, and the investigations he has run put big sites to shame.

 

[Gizen]

When I wrote that I was thinking of Roosterteeth and how they've changed over their career. Some of the guys started as Drunk Gamers and wrote whatever they felt like because no one really noticed or cared about them. Flash forward 15 years, and they're hosting the Youtube coverage of E3 and have The Know, which sometimes feels like it exists to reprint stories from PR firms. There can be (and often is) dissenting opinion, and they openly talk about how they are fans rather than an objective source of news and reviews, but it still puts me on notice. Maybe it's just the Canadian in me talking, but I can see where people are being polite and toning down what they might want to say for the sake of what they should say.

You don't even need to see them being polite and toning down, they've outright admitted it on their podcast multiple times. They know so many developpers on a personal level that they don't feel comfortable trashing anybody's work, and for the most part if they don't like something, they'd rather just not talk about it at all instead of badmouthing it. There are some exceptions, usually on their The Patch podcast, where they're more willing to talk about things they just don't like, but for the most part they actively avoid trashing anything. And if you find that they ARE trashing something, then that means you know that thing REALLY pissed them off.

 

[PlasticTree]

Man, I miss Susan.

I hope she gets to read that blurb. I'm guessing she'll like that nickname.

 

[Karloff]

'I had Susan Arendt as my editor. As anyone who's worked with Susan will tell you, she's basically the editorial equivalent of Batman.'

Seconded. Hell, Thirded if necessary. She was brilliant to work with.

 

[Imp_Emissary]

private criticism in general, is far more vulnerable to what are considered the core problems with traditional games journalism: bias, pandering, clickbait, full blown journalistic ethical violations.

This line is funnier than the comic. Tell me, how can Private Criticism violate journalistic ethics? As private criticism, there is an innate understanding that it's the opinion of one person and therefor obviously biased to that one persons beliefs.

As opposed to mainstream reviews which are written by teams of elves. Yes. I see your point.

Well, I don't know about you.

Spoiler: But I don't trust those elves.

[https://imageshack.com/i/pdsqrokIj]
<_<

Also, now I miss having Susan around here again. :c

Anyway, thought provoking and funny comic. =w= b

 

[Sigmund Av Volsung]

Kotaku and Polygon's problems are an attitude of rejection towards games overall and single-mindedness whilst still working within the same systems as everyone else.

In other words, "yeah well, they just, like, have the wrong opinions, man". You ask why don't people with humanities degree don't cover games. They do, and when they do people bash them for holding opinions and say stuff like "they hate games" or "they're not even gamers". There's plenty of things worth criticizing them over, and you went for the "they hate games" angle. Kind of proves the point.

And the point still stands. Qualifications "like" journalism are useful, and would help make games journalism not a job people do when there's literally nothing else but make it something that they actually want to apply themselves to and work on. George says it doesn't make a difference, but his presentation is marginally different to anyone else, and the investigations he has run put big sites to shame.

Journalistic qualifictions are not on a piece of paper. A well qualified journalist is witty, experienced, good at networking, and a willingness to investigate throughly. None of that comes with a degree. Nor is it profitible in the digital age, by the way. People aren't going to do it when they can make more money with an actual full-time job.

Offhandedly mentioning problems with gender depiction in a game whilst pretending that there won't be people who will target a review for said feature is just bad. It makes assumptions and is dismissive and single minded.

Polygon has been doing this for a long while as well. Doesn't mean that I don't appreciate some of their work or think that their opinions are bad. Opinions are meaningless, arguments are worth a damn, and if they're badly formed, then that reflects carelessness in execution. This happens often with both of the sites you mentioned.

Don't know why you assume I'm attacking them. I just don't like them. I liked some of their articles, particularly Russ Pitt's coverage of Spec Ops The Line, but that Rock Band 4 article is absolutely terrible.

And education isn't just a piece of paper either. It's learning, it's picking up techniques and applying what was taught in real life. I'm not talking about stuff printed on the back of takeout menus. Education can help inspire those said qualities, because they sure as hell aren't going to be tempered by what's on the table in games journalism today.

Besides, all degrees outside of ones with high employment rates like Engineering are a waste of time anyway. Few land people the jobs they want.

 

[Ukomba]

private criticism in general, is far more vulnerable to what are considered the core problems with traditional games journalism: bias, pandering, clickbait, full blown journalistic ethical violations.

This line is funnier than the comic. Tell me, how can Private Criticism violate journalistic ethics? As private criticism, there is an innate understanding that it's the opinion of one person and therefor obviously biased to that one persons beliefs.

As opposed to mainstream reviews which are written by teams of elves. Yes. I see your point.

No, as in, when you see a private criticism you can tell it's coming from that persons personal view point, and actual Journalism makes the claim that they are unbiased reporters of the news.

There is a certain level of respect granted, fairly or unfairly, to News organizations. If DinkySharkFighter32 says Sarkeesian is a scam artist, people will shrug it off as personal bias regardless of the number of followers. If the New York times says Sarkeesian is a scam artist, it's a much different mater.

Where Private Criticism focuses on the person doing the Criticism, People tend not to pay attention to the Journalist doing the writing and attribute the report to the organization they are reporting for. Anything posted here, for example, by any of the staff relies on the credibility of the sight more than the journalist themselves. As a result, it's important for editors of the sight to hold to a standard so as to not let individuals tarnish the groups reputation. Without the ethics, what separates legitimate news organization from a trash gossip mills like Gawker or TMZ?

Despite not being I've seen non-journalists hold themselves to an ethical standard better than many News outlets, and whom I tend to trust more because they are upfront and honest about their biases.

 

[Muspelheim]

Does Ardent still accept apprentices, by chance? A few batarangs ought to contuse some of my worse writing out rather quickly.

Having someone that can reign you in when you're galloping in the entirely wrong direction can be just as useful as having the freedom to do it. Having an editor or a producer doesn't have to be a noose around your creativity, if they're doing what they're supposed to do, they're the oven that bakes it into something better than it was.

Furious Rutabaga is a verity of what is know in the UK as the vegetable Swede.

I'm aware of the fact that rutabaga is another word for the vegetable swede. Since Swede can also refer to someone from Sweden it stood to reason that the user name was a thin reference to a real channel ("The Angry Swede" or whatever).

I quote you since I'm uncertain if I've understood correctly: is there a species of rutabaga called the "furious rutabaga"?

Heh, I think I remember there being a few 'Angry Swede'-sketches in the Sheep in the Big City cartoon. Can't for my life find them, though. Can't be long until we'll get one on Youtube, though. Being an Angry X seems to be a common practice.

"Dis game SUCKS! DON'T BUY IT! Jävla horungar!! plz like n subscribe!"