The Great Step Forward

[unacomn]

Really Jaffe? $125K annual salary? Don't know what kind of flower scented fantasy world he lives in but the damn thing must be carved out of gold. Started to get a gag reflex every time I see his damn name come up.

Yea, I saw that and thought "Wait... no, that can't be right..." the I started crunching numbers.
Is he mocking me? Is he mocking that this profession yields fairly low revenue regardless of how hard you work, if you don't have an already massive audience to latch on to?

I get the same reaction every time I hear his name, I'm not even sure how it started, but I think it may have something to do with him being a bit of a prick.

 

[Namechangeday]

It's funny without the context, but with it, I don't know where to start. I guess I'll start by asking how much does he know about this occupation? Plus, what happens when the Kickstarter doesn't reach its goal?

 

[shrekfan246]

I like that David Jaffe mentions Jim Sterling as one of the journalist good guys.

No sarcasm, either, it's good to know a guy like him has got such a widely-heard voice in the industry.

Oh, and funny strip. I always have more trouble actually structuring what I'm going to type rather than spelling it though, so I imagine any editor working on my stuff would more likely go "Ugh, what do I have to move around in this one..." rather than "Ugh, let me re-type this up to be legible..."

 

[lord.jeff]

Really Jaffe? $125K annual salary? Don't know what kind of flower scented fantasy world he lives in but the damn thing must be carved out of gold. Started to get a gag reflex every time I see his damn name come up.

Yea, I saw that and thought "Wait... no, that can't be right..." the I started crunching numbers.
Is he mocking me? Is he mocking that this profession yields fairly low revenue regardless of how hard you work, if you don't have an already massive audience to latch on to?

I get the same reaction every time I hear his name, I'm not even sure how it started, but I think it may have something to do with him being a bit of a prick.

His next line says that the $125,000 would be paying the salary of up to 5 people, making it something more like $25,000 a year salary which is pretty modest.

 

[Eric the Orange]

What I find more hilarious than the strip it self is that, in predicting that some people wouldn't get it he posted the related article... and then some people still didn't get it.

 

[contla]

Why is Jim not on the editor's side. He's the Review Editor at Dtoid.

 

[Lono Shrugged]

I think Jaffe phrased the whole thing badly and didn't think it out. But he has a really good point.
There are very few journos who I follow in games (Jim being a good example) and the idea of holding them to account the greater population of gamers is a fantastic idea. It's not a replacement or suppressing of anyone, it's the concept of paying a good reviewer to provide a service. It's a nice twist on the crowd funding and supports quality and rewards someone who brings something to the table. It's a fantastic idea. And like all fantastic ideas, people will get involved and fuck it up. Great art today BTW.

I think the people being herded into the sea are the old guard and Jim and co. being the mega paid new gods of gaming. I guess that site editors are the only people who can spell.

 

[Alek The Great]

Really Jaffe? $125K annual salary? Don't know what kind of flower scented fantasy world he lives in but the damn thing must be carved out of gold. Started to get a gag reflex every time I see his damn name come up.

Yea, I saw that and thought "Wait... no, that can't be right..." the I started crunching numbers.
Is he mocking me? Is he mocking that this profession yields fairly low revenue regardless of how hard you work, if you don't have an already massive audience to latch on to?

I get the same reaction every time I hear his name, I'm not even sure how it started, but I think it may have something to do with him being a bit of a prick.

His next line says that the $125,000 would be paying the salary of up to 5 people, making it something more like $25,000 a year salary which is pretty modest.

He actually explained it better in his video and he meant that he hopes the kickstarter will raise enough so that as many people as possible could get a $125k salary. I think he just chose it to be 5 people in total as it seems like a decent number.

I don't think he was genuinely trying to insult any game journalists and I think he really believes that uncompromising journalists such as Jim deserve that kind of pay. As he said, he's not sure how much any one of them makes and he apologized if he undershot the amount. As for overshooting, I don't see why he would need to apologize for what would then be incredible generosity if people do make much less.

He expands on his idea in the video in that journalists would then be unrestricted and could potentially research and write about any industry related topic without the fear of not having enough traffic thus compromising their pieces to make them more eye-catching.

What I don't agree with (and the comic is about) is that he doesn't think editors are all that necessary. He does go on to say in his video that if the belief is that editors are needed (which they are) they can split the $125k salary right down the middle with the editor.

I think it's a neat idea that would likely need a bit of refinement to work.

tl;dr He suggested $125k for each of 5 writers and thought that's a deserving amount for noteworthy game journalists. I think it's a neat (if slightly unrefined) idea.

 

[unacomn]

His next line says that the $125,000 would be paying the salary of up to 5 people, making it something more like $25,000 a year salary which is pretty modest.

You mean this line?
"Posted by da criminal at 2:40 PM 30 comments"

 

[The Diabolical Biz]

I've found it more funny than anything because I only just now conquered my spelling of 'necessary'. I kept switching the c's and the s's.
Neck-ess-ary, minus the 'k'.

Handy way to learn it - necessary - one collar, two sleeves. Necessary is a shirt, just like a shirt is necessary. At least where I come from.

Aside from that, cracking comic. Particularly enjoyed the art.

 

[Rad Party God]

Well, it seems one can do much without an editor.

We need a hi-res version of the first panel. It's godly and epic.

 

[Mahoshonen]

This idea is older than dirt. Everyone knows Shakespears line: "Kill the Lawyers," but no one remembers the context (its two drunk guys discussing what they'd do if they were in charge-they're not meant to be taken seriously)

 

[Jadak]

There's no way in hell Susan would go down that easily.

That's the flaw you see? I scoff at the fact that Sterling is running.

 

[Callate]

I suspect that $125,000 a year is quite high for a games journalist- at least one who isn't directly getting paid by the PR department of a game publisher.

I'm also not at all sure that $125,000 is enough for a games journalist to burn all bridges that might allow them to find work after that "golden year" is up.

Now, call me crazy, but isn't what Mr. Jaffe suggesting similar to, but not identical to, what the BBC does?

I like the BBC, and I frequently feel it does a better job of presenting the news than many alleged news channels in the United States. But it does seem to occasionally come under threat when individuals or groups in the government decide that they don't approve of its activities or how its spending its money, somewhat undermining its appearance of independence. Much like Public Broadcasting in the U.S..

 

[Moonlight Butterfly]

Is this because his game didn't get good coverage or something?

 

[Chrono212]

I suspect that $125,000 a year is quite high for a games journalist- at least one who isn't directly getting paid by the PR department of a game publisher.

I'm also not at all sure that $125,000 is enough for a games journalist to burn all bridges that might allow them to find work after that "golden year" is up.

Now, call me crazy, but isn't what Mr. Jaffe suggesting similar to, but not identical to, what the BBC does?

I like the BBC, and I frequently feel it does a better job of presenting the news than many alleged news channels in the United States. But it does seem to occasionally come under threat when individuals or groups in the government decide that they don't approve of its activities or how its spending its money, somewhat undermining its appearance of independence. Much like Public Broadcasting in the U.S..

As I go on to say, the Royal Charter prevents government from explicitly meddling with the internal editorial affairs of the BBC.

 

[Callate]

As I go on to say, the Royal Charter prevents government from explicitly meddling with the internal editorial affairs of the BBC.

...Yes, I did read the entire post, thanks. I understand how it's supposed to work. I'm also aware that Margaret Thatcher sacked the director of what she viewed as a "bloated, extravagant, anti-Conservative BBC" in 1987 ([link]http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/media-blog/2013/apr/12/margaret-thatcher-television-press[/link]). And that the public nature of the BBCs funding does make it vulnerable to criticism, charter or no charter. ([link]http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/24/business/media/24bbc.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0[/link])

 

[LazyAza]

It's weird how I both love and hate david jaffe at the same time. He's a very smart man that often says a lot of smart things but sometimes yeesh he's as naive and arrogant as anyone else when it comes to discussing game journos.

Fun fact: good game journalists don't even like being called game journalists.

 

[Farther than stars]

Well, this guy's obviously insane. First of all, Sterling, one of the greats, really? For another, it's a bit of a messiah complex to want to be the John Adams to gaming-journalism politics. Moreover, who the hell thinks $125,000 is a reasonable salary to be allotted based on votes and popularity (besides politicians of course). But then, maybe this isn't that much to David Jaffe. After all, he seems to be perfectly willing to to kick in a bona fide $500 for a year of horribly written articles.
Moreover, you would think that an article which denounces editors would be a little better written. The guy misspelled salary. SALARY! If you're asking people to trust writers to write words like 'incongruous' and 'ubiquitous' flawlessly, every time and without an editor, then at least spell 'salary' correctly, a word he must care deeply about at $125.000 per annum.

There's no way in hell Susan would go down that easily.

I'm also amazed that James Portnow and Robert Rath aren't on that list either. Well, maybe it's not that amazing when you account for the fact that Jaffe is obviously insane.

Why is Jim not on the editor's side. He's the Review Editor at Dtoid.

That's really a crime against language. And I feel sorry for the reviewers. They must be tired of getting e-mails back from him that say there's not enough swearing in their articles.

His next line says that the $125,000 would be paying the salary of up to 5 people, making it something more like $25,000 a year salary which is pretty modest.

No, the line is: "125 K goes to pay 1 of the 5 reporters a yearly salarty [sic]." So one person goes home with 125K. The next line talks about how $50.000 would be used for expenses. After that he goes on to say: "Every time we raise another 175K, we pull another name from the hat/vote on the next reporter. Ideally every year we can raise enough that all 5 reporters get to work." That means you would need to raise $875.000 to get all five of them to work. People on Kickstarter won't pay that for good games! They'll never pay it for a site of terrible articles when there are good and popular sites out there for free. So besides being an ammoral grope for cash, the plan is also severely impractical.

I like that David Jaffe mentions Jim Sterling as one of the journalist good guys.

No sarcasm, either, it's good to know a guy like him has got such a widely-heard voice in the industry.

That really depends on what side of the argument you fall and/or what your definition of 'good' is and/or whether you were being sarcastic, in which case that doesn't come across. Whatever the case, if you fall on the opposite side of the argument, it's not only not good, it's also possibly disastrous.

 

[Farther than stars]

As I go on to say, the Royal Charter prevents government from explicitly meddling with the internal editorial affairs of the BBC.

A charter, let's not forget, which is subject to parliament. There's that whole bit about parliament being sovereign, after all. The charter formally being in the hands of a monarch doesn't take away the fact that power technically lies in the hands of parliament.
However, if democratic sovereignty would prove too difficult to implement, you only need to remember that the Royal Charter which regulates the BBC needs to be renewed every ten years. Once that time is up, the Cabinet could simply request Elizabeth Windsor to amend the charter before renewing it.
And through those two mechanisms the government remains in charge of what the BBC can and cannot do.
By the way, I feel the need to mention this in a thread about editing: the way you wrote that sentence, with 'explicitly' before 'meddling' instead of before 'prevents', means that it might be alright for the government to meddle, as long as they don't do that explicitly. And while both sentences might be true, you can only mean one of the two. And I feel like you might have meant the other one, instead of this one. I also feel it's probably the other sentiment which the charter expresses.