Drama in indy gaming and games journalism

[Elerond]

It "is" childish to stop someone from getting press because you disagree with them on a personal level but have no issue with the game they are working on. 

 

I don't see issue any different from campaigns to get advertisers remove their ads from site or just not reading sites because you don't like personal opinions of one of their writers.

 

Media outlets have right to freedom of speech in same way as any other organization, which means that they don't have any obligation to write things they don't want to write. And it is their readers to decide if their coverage is wide, deep fast enough to matter them. Freedom to change what media outlets you read is one of those main principalities of capitalistic media, where belief is that reader/watcher/listeners will change their media outlet to another if their current one don't serve them right. 

 

Objective media is similar to unicorns that both sound fantastic but in reality neither actually exist.

[Volourn]

"That's my point, we seem to making assumptions. And that is not helpful if you want to base your argument on facts which I assume we all want to do?"

 

Like the assumption that all gamers are white male racist rapists? L0L

 

 

"True, but it wouldn't be childish. If I was in charge of a website like RPS and I really had an issue with someone I probably wouldn't post anything about there games. But it would have to be an issue around something serious, like if the company was homophobic. Its optional what content these websites post"

 

 

HAHAHA SJW. SJW Never Change L0L

 

This is a guy who chastized and accused me of censorship.

 

Hypocrisy is thy middle name.

[Ganrich]

 

It "is" childish to stop someone from getting press because you disagree with them on a personal level but have no issue with the game they are working on.

 

 

I don't see issue any different from campaigns to get advertisers remove their ads from site or just not reading sites because you don't like personal opinions of one of their writers.

 

Media outlets have right to freedom of speech in same way as any other organization, which means that they don't have any obligation to write things they don't want to write. And it is their readers to decide if their coverage is wide, deep fast enough to matter them. Freedom to change what media outlets you read is one of those main principalities of capitalistic media, where belief is that reader/watcher/listeners will change their media outlet to another if their current one don't serve them right. 

 

Objective media is similar to unicorns that both sound fantastic but in reality neither actually exist.

I see a difference between people writing ad suppliers because they are consumers. The media isn't giving us news in some cases because it conflicts with the writer's, editor's, or their owner's views, and has nothing to do with informing their consumers. News is about informing your consumers in the least biased way possible. Also, there isn't many options to gamers in the media world. There are precious few, but to say "go somewhere else" is to ignore the problems in the media, and eventually the same behavior will be seen in those news outlets as well.

 

Except the media outlets aren't people, but a media outlet. Their morals, politics, and the like are irrelevant as their job is reporting news. Those views are relevant in opinion pieces and editorials, but they can't expect to survive by insulting their readers. They have a right to freedom of speech, but they also have an obligation to their readership to try and cover everything in their field as fairly and objectively as they can. I would also say that their freedom of speech should never supersede that of the developer creating a game. Their job is to report that the game is getting made, and to show it. If they cannot do that they are a useless website.

 

Objective media/unicorns - So, because something like objective media doesn't exist we should move on? Not discuss it? If you do not call these people out now then as an eventualality their next bias run of "news" may not be so benign, and perhaps will start stepping on civil liberties "for the greater good." In that, those that say, "just get news elsewhere" have no one to blame but themselves for not taking a stand. if this were one isolated media outlet then it wouldn't be an issue, but it is almost all of them and IMHO stepping to another outlet is the least responsible thing we could do. To each their own though.

[Elerond]

Media outlets are everything from big companies (which in certain forms can even hold religious beliefs in US now) to entities that are run by single individual, but anyway they have right to freedom of speech and express any views they want. Media has right to produce any content they see fit and consumers have right to consume any content they see fit. If media outlets didn't have right to free speech government would have right to tell them what to write, which one could argue to be much bigger risk to any objectivity/neutrality that media outlets have as whole. 

 

To make media give people comprehensive picture about things, there is option to everybody to create their own media outlet that produces content from other perspective and it is to consumers to decide which media outlet gives them best coverage about subjects that they care about. Media outlets obligation to their readership is to produce content that their readership wants them to produce and their readership has right to move to read other media outlet if one don't produce content they want.

 

Objective media doesn't exist and it can't exist because all content is produced, edited, approved and consumed by subjective persons, which means that all content that has even little bit complexity in it becomes a subjective piece.  As even deciding which things are news and which isn't is subjective procedure, which means that even news that focus only objective facts about things are actually exposed to subjective judgement of someone/s before they are shown to people.

[licketysplit]

Rumor is Nvidia is talking about following intel's example and pulling ad support. I think specifically they said they were pulling support from Kotaku, but that is second hand. This was said in a KiA stream by an Nvidia employee I believe. Trying to find the stream. Take this with a gigantopithecus sized grain of salt.

That would be awesome. the more companies who pull adds the more media shenanigans that get exposed. I've personally thought of emailing Alienware.

Edited October 5, 2014 by licketysplit

[Ganrich]

@Elerond - We are going to have to agree to disagree, I fear. As I feel allowing a gaming news agency, as small as gaming journalism is, to ignore releases of information on games is indeed keeping those that disagree from having a voice in and of itself. The press does have to make certain concessions as to what to print, but ignoring a company that they have previously covered who just released major gaming update because of political BS isn't in the same league. Their readers want to know about games, and they aren't reporting about certain games because of politics.

 

I cannot agree that because news in and of itself isn't objective that objectivity shouldn't be something to strive for. Anyone that is the top of their field doesn't stop practicing because they made it. George Carlin practiced his comedy rigourously, Larry Bird showed up to the stadium on game day at 5AM to practice shooting, great musicians practice their instrument of choice daily, and so on because although they will never be perfect... They strive to continually improve. The same is with objectivity in the news. Just because it will never be 100% objective one shouldn't just give up on trying to be so.

 

When we don't ask for an attempt at being as objective as possible from journalists we will never get anything close to it.

[Walsingham]

This is turning into a general media critique. Partly my fault.

[Malcador]

 

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

 

[BruceVC]

@Elerond - We are going to have to agree to disagree, I fear. As I feel allowing a gaming news agency, as small as gaming journalism is, to ignore releases of information on games is indeed keeping those that disagree from having a voice in and of itself. The press does have to make certain concessions as to what to print, but ignoring a company that they have previously covered who just released major gaming update because of political BS isn't in the same league. Their readers want to know about games, and they aren't reporting about certain games because of politics.

 

I cannot agree that because news in and of itself isn't objective that objectivity shouldn't be something to strive for. Anyone that is the top of their field doesn't stop practicing because they made it. George Carlin practiced his comedy rigourously, Larry Bird showed up to the stadium on game day at 5AM to practice shooting, great musicians practice their instrument of choice daily, and so on because although they will never be perfect... They strive to continually improve. The same is with objectivity in the news. Just because it will never be 100% objective one shouldn't just give up on trying to be so.

 

When we don't ask for an attempt at being as objective as possible from journalists we will never get anything close to it.

 

But this whole " furore" around the update about Kingdom isn't an issue at all because those websites did release the update but it was delayed?

 

 

So in fact this is a none issue. I still don't agree that if a gaming  website doesn't release every single update about every single game within a time frame that means there is a conspiracy. I still believe that any gaming website doesn't have to release updates about any game if it doesn't want to. But a gaming website does have a responsibility to review games objectively  based on the merits of the games and not let there opinions of the developers cloud there judgement. Because then there reviews won't be based on valid metrics

 

So in the case of KIngdom I still don't see the issue or how this supports your view around the gaming journalist  conspiracy?

[BruceVC]

 

 

Not entirely unbelievable, you kind aren't above high school nonsense like that.

 

But it would have to be an issue around something serious, like if the company was homophobic.

 

 

I agree websites should cover whatever the hell they like. OTOH the point above seems to me to be the root of the problem in this entire debate - what do you consider to be 'homophobic?'

 

I'm socially liberal and dislike bigotry. However, I suspect your idea of what constitutes bigotry and mine might be rather different. SJWs and the like use allegations of bigotry, 'isms' and phobias to shut down debate and determine the terms of reference in their favour.

 

So I don't accept their rules much of the time because they are deliberately tactical. OTOH they will just allege the 'ism' du jour. As in, "I'm not even engaging with him... he's a SEXIST!" And so on.

 

 

You have asked a very good question. What constitutes bigotry and how should be respond. I thought about it for a while

 

For me if someone on a forum goes on some kind of intellectual or religious justification around why homosexuality is  wrong I will disagree with them but still debate the point. I would still think they are a bigot and personally think less of them but I respect there right to believe that and make a point. But they would have to expect to receive criticism from a SJ perspective. This would apply to all forms of bigotry like anti-Semitism or sexism

 

But there is a line around how a person can express there bigotry, so I suppose it boils down to what they say and the words they choose?

[HoonDing]

 

The Codex is strong in this one.

[Malcador]

Ah, it got a chuckle out of me.

 

 

Not entirely unbelievable, you kind aren't above high school nonsense like that.

 

True, but it wouldn't be childish. If I was in charge of a website like RPS and I really had an issue with someone I probably wouldn't post anything about there games. But it would have to be an issue around something serious, like if the company was homophobic. Its optional what content these websites post

 

It would be, you don't cover a game because you think one of the developers there is not "in line" although your audience may care about the game and that's just juvenile. Not that this is the case here as the 'omission' here is most likely unintended.

Edited October 6, 2014 by Malcador

[Longknife]

 

 

All hail the leader

[HoonDing]

 

These people are the online equivalent of Hyde Park soapbox nutters

[Malcador]

Well, don't see why not. Then a drama would ensue about how they are not as good as male players.

[Gorth]

Long story got longer

 

Closed according to tradition