Kotaku's Blacklisting........discussion

[Deleted member 11852]

I've just read Kotaku's mindbendingly obtuse and disingenuous point of view. Here's their account of how things went wrong with Bethesda but they seemingly don't know why:

The Bethesda blackout came after a year of reporting that was not always flattering to the Maryland-based publisher. In April of 2013 we reported insiders’ accounts of the troubled development of the still unreleased fourth major Doom game. In May of that year, we reported that Arkane Austin, the Bethesda-owned studio behind Dishonored, would be working on a new version of the long missing-in-action Prey 2 and that some at the studio were not pleased about that. When top people at Bethesda started making statements casting doubt on our reporting, we published a leaked internal e-mail confirming that those statements had misled gamers and that Arkane had indeed been working on a version of Prey 2.​

Or to be more precise, not a year after unflattering reporting during which time Bethesda had seemingly treated Kotaku like any other media outlet running reports on troubled development on games, but to be more precise exactly the day Kotaku published extracts from the Fallout 4 script that was leaked to them. Amazingly they later mention the leaked script in an offhand knd of way seeking credit for not spoiling the plot!

We make our own judgments about what information best serves the news value of a story, and what our readers would prefer not to know—which is why, for example, we omitted key plot details from the Fallout 4 scripts that were leaked to us. We keep covering these companies’ games, of course.​

Wow. Just wow. Kotaku need better investigative journalists if they're unable to determine the causation that resulted in the cold shoulder by Bethesda because it seems pretty bleeding obvious!

 

[Shifty Geezer]

That's actually reason to be blackballed. Leaking a script isn't really news nor action that requires press protection.

 

[milk]

Nothing keeps an outlet from buying games on release to review them. Review coppies is something they get from publishers out of good will (with marketing purposes, of course) and so is getting invited to PR events. There's nothing saying these publishers have an obligation to provide all journalists with review/preview coppies or invite them to every event they host, and none of those things have ANYTHING to do with free journalism. They had theirs stories, they were published, and are still up on their site. They've had all free journalism they could wish for.

 

[Grall]

So should Beth and Ubi and everyone else be forced to answer any questions from any journalists?

There's a very big difference between not answering questions ("Sorry, we do not comment on internet rumors and speculation", or whatever appropriate response) and just ignoring any and all attempted communications completely. For years.

Can you get any pettier than that?

If you bake some cakes and a journalist phones you and asks for free samples for review, have you got to provide them?

If you would normally not ignore an outlet like Kotaku, and in fact regularly do provide them cake, actual game review samples, whatever... Unless said outlet was deliberately trying to sabotage things for you by printing deliberate lies, whatever (not the case here), then yeah, the appropriate thing would be to not ignore them completely.

But I don't see anything on the level of National Constitution or Human Rights violations here.

No, this is more like an ethics violation.

 

[Deleted member 11852]

Can you get any pettier than that?

How about publishing propriety and confidential information that's come your way via an unauthorised leak?

No, this is more like an ethics violation.

I think we all agree but you're in the minority regarding which party has violated their code of ethics. If you polled 100 random people I doubt you'l would find many who would be OK with the concept of journalists publishing any and all information they were in possession of regardless of the method of obtaining that information.

 

[mrcorbo]

Nothing keeps an outlet from buying games on release to review them. Review coppies is something they get from publishers out of good will (with marketing purposes, of course) and so is getting invited to PR events. There's nothing saying these publishers have an obligation to provide all journalists with review/preview coppies or invite them to every event they host, and none of those things have ANYTHING to do with free journalism. They had theirs stories, they were published, and are still up on their site. They've had all free journalism they could wish for.

By your comments, I don't know if you are aware of the extent of the blackout, though. It's not just special access that they are being denied. They can't even get comments on their stories (giving the publisher a chance to give their side). Not even a "no comment", just silence. I believe that neither the public or the publisher themselves are being served by this.

Kotaku can still do their job. They'll have to buy the review materials instead of getting them for free, which costs more and delays reviews but which also adds credibility to their content where people know they haven't been bought (see Eurogamer's perks transparency introduced in light of some other gaming press Freebiegate). As for interviews and comments, unless the press hold powers beyond the secret services to interrogate, they'll just have to work like other journalists in managing relationships that encourage sharing of content. And they can publicly talk about this as they have (free speech) if they want in the hopes of managing to change their situation via popular pressure. But I don't see anything on the level of National Constitution or Human Rights violations here. The rights of both parties are being preserved - it's just a soured relationship.

Unfortunately, I don't think that pressure will manifest. Beyond this specific situation, the fact is that we most often see public outrage over the media/publisher relationship expressed by gaming enthusiasts when the media outlet is expressing an opinion that differs from their own. Or, as we've seen from Gamergate, when there are secondary elements driving the reaction. If the gaming community would more often show the wisdom to perceive when one of the other parties (media or game makers) is acting against their interest and the will to "punish" the parties that are pursuing those actions we'd have a much healthier ecosystem.

 

[milk]

By your comments, I don't know if you are aware of the extent of the blackout, though. It's not just special access that they are being denied. They can't even get comments on their stories (giving the publisher a chance to give their side). Not even a "no comment", just silence. I believe that neither the public or the publisher themselves are being served by this.

I got it, I don't know if this is good or bad for those publishers, and I know it's certainly not good for kotaku. My point is just that free speech, free journalism and censorship are concepts completely unrelated to what is going on here.

 

[Deleted member 11852]

Unfortunately, I don't think that pressure will manifest.

Probably not and this is not Kotaku's first rodeo. They leaked PlayStation Home in 2007 before its announcement and Sony 'blacklisted' them for much the same reasons as Bethesda and Ubisoft have. Back then Kotaku was a much bigger deal and the pressure was on Sony to backtrack and they did.

Kotaku knew what they were doing here, they took the risk and it backfired. They probably thought both publishers would return to normal business in time and this hasn't happened hence the article.

In police terms "they have form" for this behaviour. It's interesting reading the comments on their own article because opinion is very divided from what I would expect to be a fairly loyal readership.

 

[Prophecy2k]

[snip]
If somebody shits on your lawn, you don't invite them to your barbecue

You do if it's Bruno, the neighbours Pug. He's a cute little bast@rd

Spoiler

Sorry, I couldn't resist.

 

[Grall]

How about publishing propriety and confidential information that's come your way via an unauthorised leak?

Yeah! What about that, really?!
News organizations do that all the time. I think most would agree it's part of their job description. Without media to publish leaked information there's a lot of wrongs nobody would ever hear about because - duh - nobody would be there to tell us about it.

Knuckling under to the corporate boot and heel and keeping their secrets for them - for free, I might add - helps nobody.

I think we all agree but you're in the minority regarding which party has violated their code of ethics.

[Citation Needed]

If you polled 100 random people I doubt you'l would find many who would be OK with the concept of journalists publishing any and all information they were in possession of regardless of the method of obtaining that information.

Your postulation is very slanted as stated. Is this what you think happened here, Kotaku walking over corpses that valiant Ubi and Bethy employees died to protect...?

 

[Deleted member 11852]

Yeah! What about that, really?!

Don't equate serious issues that are in the public interest to a gaming website who publish anything they can get their hands on - regardless of the legality of how that information was obtained.

News organizations do that all the time. I think most would agree it's part of their job description.

Actually they don't, it's the exception rather than the rule. That is entirely why WikiLeaks exists at all - because most journalists won't reproduce leaked information at all. It's legally questionable at best. Even being in possession of somebody else's proprietary and confidential information can be tantamount of industrial espionage or being in possession of stolen goods.

Knuckling under to the corporate boot and heel and keeping their secrets for them - for free, I might add - helps nobody.

You think that companies have no right to privacy? They have no right to release information about games when it suits them in accordance with expensive marketing and advertising? Because uh... WTF?

[Citation Needed]

Based on the comments in this thread - a barometer of opinion as good as any.

Your postulation is very slanted as stated. Is this what you think happened here, Kotaku walking over corpses that valiant Ubi and Bethy employees died to protect...?

Are you high? We know what happened; Kotaku would like people to believe that they were blacklisted because of routine negative reporting of Bethesda but their own article says they were publishing negative articles for a year without any problems. Their problem was then they crossed the link in publishing extracts from a stolen script (because that's what an unauthorised leak is) of an unannounced game.

That's no a slant, that's what happened.

 

[milk]

Yeah! What about that, really?!

I don't think known wiki leaks contributors would be surprised if they were not invited into the white house next time there's a press event in there...

 

[Deleted member 11852]

I don't think known wiki leaks contributors would be surprised if they were not invited into the white house next time there's a press event in there...

Well apart from Edward Snowden. But I don't think there will be cake! Or maybe there will!

 

[Silent_Buddha]

Yeah! What about that, really?!
News organizations do that all the time. I think most would agree it's part of their job description. Without media to publish leaked information there's a lot of wrongs nobody would ever hear about because - duh - nobody would be there to tell us about it.

And nothing is preventing Kotaku from continuing to publish leaked information if they so desire.

However, just like WikiLeaks that you linked, they are unlikely to ever again have access to the entities from which the leaks originated. Sure they'll have access to their moles, until such time as those sources dry up.

Responsible journalists, however, know better than to publish everything they hear. Especially if it was told to them in confidentiality. They know that as soon as they publish anything relayed to them in confidence, that they will no longer have direct access to the source. They only do so if they feel that going public with the information is worth the potential for lifelong exclusion from that entity, whether it be a government, corporation, individual, or whatever.

So, really, if you want Kotaku to go about things like WikiLeaks, you can expect them to be blacklisted by virtually every publisher and developer in existence.

Hell, you'll note that as mentioned before, Bethesda have been extremely tolerant of Kotaku publishing unflattering information and rumors about them. It's only when it was something that was materially confidential that they finally decided the relationship was no longer healthy for them.

I don't really like either party. But as I mentioned before. I'll defend Kotaku's right to report on whatever they wish. Likewise, I'll defend Bethesda's right to choose who they do business with, which includes the dissemination of information and distribution of free review material.

At the end of the day, I still won't go to Kotaku's website and I still won't buy any of Bethesda's games. Although I might get Doom when it is released.

Regards,
SB

 

[temesgen]

So should Beth and Ubi and everyone else be forced to answer any questions from any journalists? If a journalist calls you and starts asking personal questions, do you have to answer, or are you free to put the phone down on them? Should publishers be forced to supply free review materials art cost to them? If you bake some cakes and a journalist phones you and asks for free samples for review, have you got to provide them?

Kotaku can still do their job. They'll have to buy the review materials instead of getting them for free, which costs more and delays reviews but which also adds credibility to their content where people know they haven't been bought (see Eurogamer's perks transparency introduced in light of some other gaming press Freebiegate). As for interviews and comments, unless the press hold powers beyond the secret services to interrogate, they'll just have to work like other journalists in managing relationships that encourage sharing of content. And they can publicly talk about this as they have (free speech) if they want in the hopes of managing to change their situation via popular pressure. But I don't see anything on the level of National Constitution or Human Rights violations here. The rights of both parties are being preserved - it's just a soured relationship.

IMO this is the main problem with gaming journalism, the publishers are very cozy with the media. In many ways the reviews have become an extension of the marketing campaigns....

 

[Shifty Geezer]

Yeah! What about that, really?!
News organizations do that all the time. I think most would agree it's part of their job description. Without media to publish leaked information there's a lot of wrongs nobody would ever hear about because - duh - nobody would be there to tell us about it.

There's a very big difference between releasing essential info to the public that the public needs to know, and releasing trivial information that only harms/offends your friends. You use the word "wrongs" - what wrongs are Kotaku outing?

Knuckling under to the corporate boot and heel and keeping their secrets for them - for free, I might add - helps nobody.

But the secrets are upcoming games that will be announced when the publisher is ready to reveal (giving them the option to cancel unannounced projects without gamers getting all entitled), and scripts that can only spoil an experience. What public service has Kotaku done that means they need our support to carry on leaking trivial gaming news? Not even the most useful SDK leaks are public service requiring the media to operate without natural repercussions. If Kotaku want to go the leaks route to generate interest and traffic, they have to realise they run the risk of alienating their industry partners. If they were getting blacklisted for things like "Developer working conditions" stories or stuff that really matters, you'd have a case. But they are just spreading gossip they've been asked (explicitly or implicitly) to keep to themselves.

 

[Grall]

But they are just spreading gossip they've been asked (explicitly or implicitly) to keep to themselves.

And like I already said, who exactly is served by media being corporate lapdogs? Other than said corps, of course. Media cozying up to the corps gets the public nothing - rather it tends to pointedly not be in our interests - so why should we cheer the corps in their retaliatory strategy? Again, it will get us nothing.

One might point and say, leaking unannounced games isn't the most critical form of news reporting in the world, yeah, maybe so, but the principle is the same. Also, wasn't this precisely what Gamergate really was all about, btw...?

 

[zed]

i decry for the umpteenth time the lack of decent investigator game journalism

^ I wrote this here in 2008

Of course due to gaming journalism being nonexistant these questions wont get asked, Surely theres a place on the web for at least one gaming website with integrity

this is a good question a journalist should ask, "what are you thinking", it wont happen though since journalism doesnt really exist in gaming/IT stuff

Now if the gaming industry had proper journalism instead of the puffpiece pr journalism which we have now

 

[upnorthsox]

^ I wrote this here in 2008

And of course all of that has nothing to do with Kotaku which was only interested in click bait sensationalism.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

And like I already said, who exactly is served by media being corporate lapdogs?

Why is not leaking irrelevant release dates and game info being a corporate lapdog?

There's a distinction to be made between spreading confidential info and speaking truthfully about games. You don't have to be a sycophant to treat someone with respect. You don't have to be a corporate lapdog to respect confidential info and commercial interests. You can be both honest and up-front with your readers, and share sensitive info only when it makes sense to do so, appreciating that you have to weigh the wins with your potential audience against the cost with the good will of the publishers.