This is Project Horseshoe

[N. Evan Van Zelfden]

This is Project Horseshoe

Deep in the heart of Texas, at a place known as Canyon of the Eagles, a little gathering called Project Horseshoe took place last weekend. If you haven?t heard of it before, that?s because it?s one of the game industry?s best-kept secrets ? and maybe its most important.

Permalink

 

[Virgil]

That sounds great - I'm looking forward to the followups.

A little bit more on George "Fat Man" Sanger and his conferences can be found in Fat Music, from issue 80.

 

[Ian Dorsch]

Yeah, this is great. I'll look forward to reading the coverage.

 

[no_relation]

because of the nature of discussions taking place, specific individuals will offer personal approval before publication.

...really? And you call this journalism?

I can appreciate that they'd insist on leaving out details like names and such, it's no different from an anonymous source (which a lot of people get twitchy over anyways), and the point of this conference as I understand it is to talk about these big issues without having to worry about public scrutiny. But letting someone other than your editor approve your story, it makes me question the journalistic integrity of the writer and the Escapist. I'm not a journalist myself, except in the most liberal sense, and most of what I know of journalistic ethics comes from watching Sports Night, I'm just sharing what I'm thinking here.

But hell yeah I'm gonna read the coverage, sounds like fun.

 

[Nushi]

it's more the point that if they wish to be asked back EVER, they'd best not spend the first year stamping on toes, basically if you get a look at something you wouldn't other wise i'll take anything, but i can understand not abusing the privilege to be somewhere like that.

 

[Arbre]

No Texan babes?
Ah nvermind, I'll still come back for the coverage.

 

[Russ Pitts]

because of the nature of discussions taking place, specific individuals will offer personal approval before publication.

...really? And you call this journalism?

Yes. We do.

We're often given information off the record, shown things then asked not to report on them or given details that we can't release before a certain date. We respect these requests whenever possible, because our relationship with the industry is almost as important as our relationship to you.

When invited as the sole representative of the press to an exclusive, highly secretive conference, where the attendees are, for all intents and purposes, attending anonymously, yes it's entirely appropriate to seek approval before quoting people.

There are people at Horseshoe saying and doing things that haven't been approved by their companies' PR offices. Saying things off-the-record, talking about upcoming projects and sharing details of their production strategies which would all jeopardize their jobs and perhaps the jobs of others if we leaked them. Allowing us through the doors at all shows they have a great deal of respect for The Escapist and Evan. Betraying that trust would be plain stupid, and certainly wouldn't be called journalism. Tabloid journalism perhaps, but not the kind we practice.

 

[AK-00]

Historically, journalists have always looked to others to tell them what to print. Governments, corporations, the readers themselves... It was only in the decades immediately following Watergate that they became widely regarded as champions of truth, and even then it was mostly a misconception. These days, the media does more to conceal important information that publicise it, burying it in an avalanche of sanctioned press releases and puerile "human interest" stories.

So, yeah. Parr for the course. Needless to say, we'd all like to know what's being said off the record, but that's a job for an independant smart enough and brave enough to find and infiltrate Project Horseshoe on their own, not for a web-zine that relies heavily on the kindness of publishers for their info.

 

[Ajar]

I read the article about Sanger back when it came out, and kept thinking how cool it would be to be a fly on the wall at Project Horseshoe. I'm looking forward to getting a glimpse inside.

 

[tgilbert]

Historically, journalists have always looked to others to tell them what to print...

Yes, yes, yes, we're all impressed with your cynicism. As Russ said, there's much more to journalism than the unfiltered recount of facts.

As far as an "independant [sic] smart enough and brave enough to find and infiltrate Project Horseshoe on their own..." not sure what smarts it would take, other than being a game designer respected enough by your peers to be invited -- the location of the conference is in no way seceret, one just needs to look at the website ( http://projecthorseshoe.com/ ).

And brave? There's nothing brave about taking advantage of someone's trust for your own "journalistic" gain, which seems to be what you're suggesting. And infiltration would be nothing short of an "intimate betrayal" as all of those in attendance know each other personally.

On a more supportive note, looking forward to the rest of the coverage.

 

[Bongo Bill]

I loved reading about last year's Project Horseshoe. "Exclusive coverage," eh? And Daniel Cook is there? I am so looking forward to the rest of this.

 

[AK-00]

Yes, yes, yes...

I'm sorry if you find my perspective a little damning, but a lot of people have an unrealistic idea of what journalism involves. The simple truth is that the bulk of it is comprised of a). getting insiders to give you information, and b). sucking up to them so they'll do it again in future. Although he dressed it up as a point of principle, Russ more or less said this himself. Journalists who go around betraying confidences and trashing reputations rarely get invited anywhere. At least, not after the first time.

And, yeah. I think anyone who can get into an area without proper authorisation, gather information of interest, then get out with it and put it where people can see it, all without facing any unpleasant legal entanglements, is both smart and pretty ballsy. Whether or not such a person could be considered ethical isn't the point.

Also, you misspelled "secret". You seem to be looking out for that kind of thing.