Conflict of interest in game journalism.

[Subyman]

I assume most of them are so fabulously wealthy and successful that they have no need for full time jobs. Their incredible computer\detective skills made them rich and now they can use them recreationally for 4chan causes.

Lol, yup. They've already conquered every other facet of humanity and now sole focus on memes and seeking justice against the social justice warriors. Plenty of justice to go around.

 

[AyashiKaibutsu]

Lol, yup. They've already conquered every other facet of humanity and now sole focus on memes and seeking justice against the social justice warriors. Plenty of justice to go around.

Maybe they're like me and just sit around their apartment all day in pain raging against the world living off pensions/disability payments.

 

[smackababy]

[They] just sit around their room all day raging against the world living off their parents.

Fixed that to accurately describe 99% of the Internet Hate Machine.

 

[AyashiKaibutsu]

Fixed that to accurately describe 99% of the Internet Hate Machine.

Yea, that sounds more right I was projecting

 

[suszterpatt]

The real issue in this whole situation is really not what Zoe Quinn did, it's what the gaming "journalists" did.

Zoe Quinn cheating on her bf is entirely her business, and not much of a story.

Zoe Quinn cheating on her bf with influential members of the industry who can further her career, that's slightly more interesting.

But the really interesting thing is how everyone in her circles reacted to this. E.g, John Walker from Rock-Paper-Shotgun tweeted this:

anyone who posts on RPS *anything* about the private lives of *anyone* will be instantly banned

Seems reasonable, right? Except only a month ago, Max Temkin, a male game developer, was accused of rape (which he denied), and the very same John Walker posted an article about it on RPS that has this in the second paragraph:

So it's weird not to talk about it, right? Why is no-one talking about it? Follow on.

Soooooo, how come it's "weird not to talk about" a male game developer being accused of rape, but talking about a female game developer admitting to rape (according to her own definition) is grounds for instant banning?

These people will jump on every possibility to twist words and misrepresent facts in order to make male game developers appear as evil, chauvinistic bastards, potentially ruining their reputation/career, and then they'll turn around and prevent anyone from discussing the well-documented antics of a female developer who they all happen to be hanging out with.

For all the social justice talk that these people publish, ostensibly in the name of "equality" and "anti-harrassment", their scales are pretty friggin' slanted.

Oh, and let's not forget the Society of Professional Journalists' Code of Ethics:

Act Independently

Journalists should be free of obligation to any interest other than the public's right to know.

Journalists should:

— Avoid conflicts of interest, real or perceived.
— Remain free of associations and activities that may compromise integrity or damage credibility.
— Refuse gifts, favors, fees, free travel and special treatment, and shun secondary employment, political involvement, public office and service in community organizations if they compromise journalistic integrity.
— Disclose unavoidable conflicts.
— Be vigilant and courageous about holding those with power accountable.
— Deny favored treatment to advertisers and special interests and resist their pressure to influence news coverage.
— Be wary of sources offering information for favors or money; avoid bidding for news.

Can you count how many of those your average Kotaku writer is guilty of?


tl;dr
- Nobody cares, or at least nobody should care, that Zoe Quinn is a horrible person
- Zoe Quinn did a lot of things that hurt the gaming industry
- The real criminals are the gaming "journalists" (who all hang out with her) and indie devs (who all hang out with her), for not only supporting her in this, but actively trying to censor any and all criticism aimed at her.

 

[PrincessFrosty]

Update: Kotaku finally cracked, this whole issue with Zoe Quinn brought into light a lot of investigation by the gamers into who crowd funds what and which developers get kickbacks from article writers etc, it looks like this is all being pulled now and there can be no conflict of interest, where there is in future there will be transparency

You can read kotakus update here http://kotaku.com/a-brief-note-about-the-continued-discussion-about-kotak-1627041269

Or if you don't want to give them any clicks you can read it below verbatim.

A brief note about the continued discussion about Kotaku's approach to reporting. We've long been wary of the potential undue influence of corporate gaming on games reporting, and we've taken many actions to guard against it. The last week has been, if nothing else, a good warning to all of us about the pitfalls of cliquishness in the indie dev scene and among the reporters who cover it. We've absorbed those lessons and assure you that, moving ahead, we'll err on the side of consistent transparency on that front, too.

We appreciate healthy skepticism from critics and have looked into—and discussed internally—concerns. We agree on the need to ensure that, on the occasion where there is a personal connection between a writer and a developer, it's mentioned. We've also agreed that funding any developers through services such as Patreon introduce needless potential conflicts of interest and are therefore nixing any such contributions by our writers. Some may disagree that Patreons are a conflict. That's a debate for journalism critics.

Ultimately, I believe you readers want the same thing my team, without exception, wants: a site that feels bullshit-free and independent, that tells you about what's cool and interesting about gaming in a fair way that you can trust. I look forward to focusing ever more sharply on that mission.

Update: I initially wanted to keep this statement focused on questions about Kotaku's reporting. In doing so I didn't mention the fact that that criticism has been part of a larger week-long saga that has involved inexcusable harassment of developers and writers, including some Kotaku staff. This statement should not be read as a tacit endorsement of hounding anyone online, of making personal attacks or otherwise being rude, destructive or awful. Genuine, reasonable criticism is always welcome. Harassment is not welcome and is in no way ok with me or anyone else on the team.

 

[futurefields]

anybody know when GTA5 PC is coming out? that's what I care about

 

[thedosbox]

You can read kotakus update here http://kotaku.com/a-brief-note-about-the-continued-discussion-about-kotak-1627041269

Disclosure is great, but I doubt it'll change anything the next time a game has a contentious review:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/insertcoin/2014/08/22/the-truth-about-video-game-journalism/

The problem is that when people don’t see their own biases or viewpoints reflected in the press, they get unreasonably upset. In truth, no one wants you to be completely unbiased, as that’s usually inescapably dull. They just want you to have their bias.

Anyhow, I did note this little gem:

We've also agreed that funding any developers through services such as Patreon introduce needless potential conflicts of interest and are therefore nixing any such contributions by our writers.

Really? If that is a "potential conflict", then these scenarios are too:

Game being reviewed was supplied by the publisher for free.
Writer attended a preview event and had their expenses paid by the publisher.
Writer had paid for a game on their own account from the same publisher or developer.
Writer had previously reviewed an earlier game in the series.

Yet no drama was raised about these issues for years, even though they've been longstanding practice.

I've maintained all along that game reviews are just one person's opinion, which is always going to be biased. Anyone claiming that reviews are "journalism" clearly doesn't understand this, and I'll be shaking my head at the next flame war that erupts over a review.

 

[SMOGZINN]

Really? If that is a "potential conflict", then these scenarios are too:

Let us look at these individually.

Game being reviewed was supplied by the publisher for free.

This is not a conflict of interest. What is a conflict of interest is the publishers tactic of only allowing people that promise to play nice or have a history of only writing positive reviews to get advanced copies and then using NDA's to make sure that if you don't play their game you miss out on all the revenue that comes with the day one review.

Writer attended a preview event and had their expenses paid by the publisher.

This definitely have the potential of causing a conflict of interest. It is the job of the journalist to prevent even the appearance of such conflict of interest, and of the media to make sure that they are covering the bills of their reporters. But it is better on their profit margins to let the publishers write that expense into their advertising expenses. We, as savvy consumers of journalism, should really boycott media that covers stories that stems from such an event.

Writer had paid for a game on their own account from the same publisher or developer.

There is a explicit 'undue' in front of the words 'conflict of interest'. Unless the publisher is trying to use the account to threaten or bribe the journalists then this is not a conflict of interest.

Writer had previously reviewed an earlier game in the series.

This is just silly, being educated about what they are reviewing is part of the reviewing process. Once again, we are not looking for clinical detachment, only fair judgement with disclosure. For example, as long as a journalist tells us that they are a long time fan of the series then it is fine for them to review the latest game in the series. That is not conflict of interest, that is just a different point of view.

I've maintained all along that game reviews are just one person's opinion, which is always going to be biased. Anyone claiming that reviews are "journalism" clearly doesn't understand this, and I'll be shaking my head at the next flame war that erupts over a review.

I don't think you understand what journalism is. Not all journalism is investigative. All reviews are opinionated, that is the nature of a review, when it is good journalism it tells us something true and tells us from what standards that opinion was formed. It is when they hide the standards, especially when that is for a personal gain motive or when they do so because they know that most people would not trust the opinion if they knew, that it is unethical.

 

[thedosbox]

This is not a conflict of interest.

So it's a conflict of interest for someone to fund a game, but not if they receive a free copy of the game? Really?

What is a conflict of interest is the publishers tactic of only allowing people that promise to play nice or have a history of only writing positive reviews to get advanced copies and then using NDA's to make sure that if you don't play their game you miss out on all the revenue that comes with the day one review.

Agreed, though the chance of any site that indulges in this practice changing is zero.

re: Writer attended a preview event and had their expenses paid by the publisher.

We, as savvy consumers of journalism, should really boycott media that covers stories that stems from such an event.

That isn't going to happen. A significant chunk of readership want to read all they can about an upcoming game, regardless of how it was obtained.

re: Writer had paid for a game on their own account from the same publisher or developer.

There is a explicit 'undue' in front of the words 'conflict of interest'. Unless the publisher is trying to use the account to threaten or bribe the journalists then this is not a conflict of interest.

I think you're arguing a different point. A Writer funding the development of a game is little different from one who buys a game.

re: Writer had previously reviewed an earlier game in the series.

This is just silly, being educated about what they are reviewing is part of the reviewing process. Once again, we are not looking for clinical detachment, only fair judgement with disclosure. For example, as long as a journalist tells us that they are a long time fan of the series then it is fine for them to review the latest game in the series. That is not conflict of interest, that is just a different point of view.

Where did I specify whether the review was positive or negative? Point being that some idiot will use a previous review as "evidence" of bias, regardless of the tone.

re: I've maintained all along that game reviews are just one person's opinion, which is always going to be biased

I don't think you understand what journalism is. Not all journalism is investigative.

I don't think you understand the difference between a review and journalism - i.e. "I like this" versus a report of the facts "this happened".

It is when they hide the standards, especially when that is for a personal gain motive or when they do so because they know that most people would not trust the opinion if they knew, that it is unethical.

How is admitting that they they funded a games development going to provide a writer with personal gain? And again, how is that different from buying the game themselves?

Again, I've no issue with disclosure, just with the hypocrisy behind the current stupidity.

 

[SMOGZINN]

So it's a conflict of interest for someone to fund a game, but not if they receive a free copy of the game? Really?

I honestly don't know if funding, or patronizing, a game developer is a conflict of interest. Normally it is when that funding amounts to an investment that it is a conflict of interest. I think the idea is that the modern idea of crowdfunding is too new for us to have a good grasp of the implications. What I do know is that I respect journalists for being cautious of perceived conflicts of interest.

That isn't going to happen. A significant chunk of readership want to read all they can about an upcoming game, regardless of how it was obtained.

Agreed. And so we get the press we deserve.

re: Writer had paid for a game on their own account from the same publisher or developer.

I think you're arguing a different point. A Writer funding the development of a game is little different from one who buys a game.

I don't think I understood the point then. As long as they are not hoping to get a ROI on that funding, I think I would agree with you. Although I can see an argument that they could have a 'protect my investment' motive that would be unethical, especially if they fail to disclose it. But like a lot of conflicts of interest in journalism, it is mitigated by disclosure.

re: Writer had previously reviewed an earlier game in the series.
Where did I specify whether the review was positive or negative? Point being that some idiot will use a previous review as "evidence" of bias, regardless of the tone.

We try not to take advice from the idiots. The world is full of them and they are good at making noise, but that does not make them right.
I was just giving an example, it could just as easily be long time hater of the series, like: 'I've played at least a few hours of every Final Fantasy game every made, and thought they were all trash, this one is no exception'. This would be a review with out conflict of interest. It tells me upfront that if I am, like the author, someone that have not liked FF games, I won't like this one either. That is useful information.

re: I've maintained all along that game reviews are just one person's opinion, which is always going to be biased
I don't think you understand the difference between a review and journalism - i.e. "I like this" versus a report of the facts "this happened".

A review can be journalism. Instead of 'this is what happened' is it 'This is what that is like'. It can include 'this is what I like' but it fails to be journalism if it is nothing more then that. There are review sites that are journalistic, and those that are not. The good ones are journalists.

 

[_Rick_]

Thanks to whoever referred me to the ED article, that was better entertainment than most movies I've seen in a while, and so well researched too.
Considering that ED is usually reasonably neutral in their "reporting" (you've got to see through the lingo, and the fact that they hate everyone equally), that article is quite informative.
Of course, I don't really care about the actual issue, but the fact that Internet drama still exists, including warring cliques and the whole shebang, is oddly satisfying.

I particularly liked the first bit, where some random troll essentially managed to get her the screen-time she needed to get that failure of a game green-lit. Well, that and the fact that everbody's favorite Anita got wind of it.

It also proved me, that reading Twitter is likely to give you severe stupiditis. Because stupid is infectious, and boy, the stupidity was overwhelming.

As for the standard of reviews? I used to read reviews, but mostly for the entertainment value. Few people bother to establish a decent review regime, and so you just can't trust whatever their conclusions are. But that's old news...

 

[SharpHawk]

The gaming press declares that gamers are dead. But they are the ones who are becoming obsolete.

Didn't want to make a new topic just for this, so I'm just posting it here.

 

[jruchko]

The past few days have been amazing. The social justice side is just putting their blatant hypocrisy on full display.

Jeff Grubb on twitter actually said "both sides of the story" shit is terrible. Al Jazeera may be reporting facts, but it's not reporting the truth.

After that Bob Chipman said "Guess what? In real life, motives and endgame matter as much if not MORE than tactics." That kind of thinking is just downright scary.

Here is a bonus tweet from a guy who was a writer for portal 1 and 2. "so no answer then? Proving my point that all gamers should (and will) be executed."

Here is something that happened that really pissed a lot of them off:

 

[Nebor]

Those poor women don't realize that they're puppets of the gamer patriarchy.

 

[jruchko]

Those poor women don't realize that they're puppets of the gamer patriarchy.

They are being attacked by the social justice side for "internalizing their oppression" and other such nonsense. They have created a situation where they can always claim they are right because even if you are a woman/minority and say you are not a victim, to them you are still a victim. If you are a man and you disagree with them it is because you are misogynist.

It is impossible to have a rational discussion with people who have that viewpoint.

 

[thedosbox]

So the idiots who don't understand the difference between news, reviews and opinion pieces have been harassing Jenn Frank for writing an article in support of the MRA boogey woman, because she didn't mention her support for Zoe Quinn on Patreon. Turns out this was because the newspapers lawyers said there was no conflict of interest for an op-ed piece.

After continued harassment, she's decided to stop writing about gaming and the troglodytes are celebrating.

Which reinforces how true this is:

Agreed. And so we get the press we deserve.

I hope those of you who think this is great (not necessarily smogzinn) enjoy your publisher funded puff pieces and marketing material disguised as "previews", because that's all you're going to get.

 

[SharpHawk]

We've had IGN and Kotaku for years now. There's nowhere to go but up.

If you visit traditional gaming websites but not Youtube channels like NorthernLion, Total Biscuit, and Two Best Friends Play, you're doing it wrong. I think the last SBFC podcast summed it up pretty well: the sad thing about this whole fiasco is that for most people the reaction isn't shock, but rather "yeah, sounds about right".

 

[smackababy]

I hope those of you who think this is great (not necessarily smogzinn) enjoy your publisher funded puff pieces and marketing material disguised as "previews", because that's all you're going to get.

The entire point of this thread was arguing that was all we were already getting anyway. It just happened that everyone decided to hate the developer involved, rather than the organization allowing such "bad" practice.

 

[Nebor]

So the idiots who don't understand the difference between news, reviews and opinion pieces have been harassing Jenn Frank for writing an article in support of the MRA boogey woman, because she didn't mention her support for Zoe Quinn on Patreon. Turns out this was because the newspapers lawyers said there was no conflict of interest for an op-ed piece.

After continued harassment, she's decided to stop writing about gaming and the troglodytes are celebrating.

Which reinforces how true this is:



I hope those of you who think this is great (not necessarily smogzinn) enjoy your publisher funded puff pieces and marketing material disguised as "previews", because that's all you're going to get.

This was a swift and decisive victory over an obviously impartial, biased journalist.

I like how you're trying to construe these social justice warrior scumbags, who've never contributed anything to gaming or journalism, as the solution to to the problem with gaming journalism, when in reality they're just part of the problem.

 

[thedosbox]

We've had IGN and Kotaku for years now. There's nowhere to go but up.

If you visit traditional gaming websites but not Youtube channels like NorthernLion, Total Biscuit, and Two Best Friends Play, you're doing it wrong.

LOL, keep deluding yourselves:

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2014-07-16-blurred-lines-are-youtubers-breaking-the-law

Some of the world's largest video game publishers offer similar sponsored deals to prominent YouTubers. Some even have entire divisions devoted to this work. EA Ronku is perhaps the best known of these clandestine programmes. The company invites YouTube 'influencers' to create videos of its forthcoming games on a commission basis. One participant, who asked to remain anonymous, was paid £10 for every 1000 views of the video he created for EA Ronku. In his case, the agreement was brokered on the proviso that he didn't draw attention to any of the game's bugs in their commentary, ensuring the game was presented in only its best light.

And yes, TB was one of the ones who "refused" the deal. The point is that there are others who haven't.

The entire point of this thread was arguing that was all we were already getting anyway. It just happened that everyone decided to hate the developer involved, rather than the organization allowing such "bad" practice.

Note the date on the article. Where were the corruption crusaders back in July?

 

[dave_the_nerd]

Meh, I'd hit it.

But yeah, game "journalists" are a pretty corrupted lot. It takes a lot less than sex to get a good review score from most of them.

 

[Craig234]

But yeah, game "journalists" are a pretty corrupted lot. It takes a lot less than sex to get a good review score from most of them.

Fast food workers, they're all corrupted too. They'll do anything you want for almost nothing.

#makingupcrap

 

[SharpHawk]

LOL, keep deluding yourselves:

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2014-07-16-blurred-lines-are-youtubers-breaking-the-law

There's only one of me. Are you feeling alright?

 

[thedosbox]

There's only one of me. Are you feeling alright?

There's a few people on my block list, so consider "you" used in the general sense of "people who think youtubers are trustworthy".

Anyhow, someone who entered into a discussion with the gamergate people provided some perspective. It's on medium, which appears to be censored by this forum, but a search for "fair minded proponents medium gamergate" should find it:

In the article, he makes an important point about how the phrase "games journalism" has been misused recently:

All the same, some gaming publications have, over the last several years, made a concerted effort to include more investigative journalism. You can usually distinguish it from news based on press releases by the fact that investigative journalism usually makes someone look bad. Which is how we should want it — that freedom to make someone look bad when they’ve done bad is what the codes and standards you pointed me to were written to protect. If you want that sort of coverage (and ask youself, do I want it? — maybe you don’t) then it makes sense to insist on more traditional journalistic standards. But because this is still a relatively new approach for the gaming press, doing so is less about decrying corruption than it is about encouraging the industry to grow.

Growth will mean insisting upon the distinction between serious investigative journalism and the sort of enthusiast reporting that has traditionally passed for gaming news. If you’re promoting #GamerGate because you like the way the gaming press covered games before writers starting investigating topics like labor exploitation and the gender divide, then you may want to stop insisting on higher journalistic standards. If those standards are important to you, then you’ll have to tolerate those sorts of articles, even when you don’t like the light they cast on gaming. As William Randolph Hearst famously said, “News is something somebody doesn’t want printed; all else is advertising.”

TLDR; labelling all games journalists as corrupt is like saying all gamers are trolls. If you want games journalism to improve, harassing good writers out of it is not the way to go.