#NewGamesJournalism: Lauren Wainwright sacked.

Somebody Else's Problem wrote:
StayDead wrote:MCN, Knoyleo's post was clearly a joke. Get with the times.

This is the internet, someone could easily look at that image and repost it as real, without bothering to look into it.

Who the hell cares?

In the "mutual friends image" it doesn't even say her name.

Somebody Else's Problem wrote:
StayDead wrote:
Somebody Else's Problem wrote:
Skippy wrote:That can't be real!

It isn't. A quick search of Lauren's friend list shows no mention of Square-Enix, Doritos, Tomb Raider or Mountain Dew. However, OTN is at least a mutual friend.

If you're going to defame someone, at least do it with facts.

Jesus Christ. :fp:

$ilva, I'm saying some of the arguments are constructive and fair. I do think the criticism in some cases is warranted. I'm merely saying that writers are discussing vitriol that does actually exist. It's not like anyone's making that up. The aggression and hostility towards people who are actually taking their time to go into that GAF thread and address the posters is unwarranted.

I'm not sure what I've ever done to warrant such aggression from you. All this 'CHRIS SCHILLING' stuff seems like you're just trying to cause more problems for me. In which case, I'm not going to say any more.

MCN

rudderless wrote:$ilva, I'm saying some of the arguments are constructive and fair. I do think the criticism in some cases is warranted. I'm merely saying that writers are discussing vitriol that does actually exist. It's not like anyone's making that up. The aggression and hostility towards people who are actually taking their time to go into that GAF thread and address the posters is unwarranted.

I'm not sure what I've ever done to warrant such aggression from you. All this 'CHRIS SCHILLING' stuff seems like you're just trying to cause more problems for me. In which case, I'm not going to say any more.

No no no, you don't get away with it that easy. All you've done is focus on what everyone knows is nonsense and thus not worth bothering over.

You're merely adding to the diversion tactic by talking about something we don't care about.

Why are people being aggressive and hostile? Because they take their hobby seriously, and the videogames industry is built on lying to them, time after time after time.

It'll be a huge relief if you do stop posting garbage defenses and attacking your own strawman.

Look at this:

strawberry floating Kotaku, a mass of fanboyism and paid for article by activision. It's the stupid opinion that COD is hated just because it's popular. It's universally reviled by critics because it's a piece of gooseberry fool, DLC laden, map pack infested, cheating rife, unbalanced playground that solely focuses on multiplayer, and dumbs down the single player. What does kotaku do? Attack those that dare criticise the game for its flaws and play it off as if it's some sort of social phenomenon because a game is popular. That is the kind of bullshit paid for articles you can smell from a mile away. And to further clarify for canton, no one is saying some dude from activision directly went to the writer with stacks of cash, but there is no way articles like those are legit. They're a mess of fanboyism mixed with bribes from PRs and publishers in the form of ad revenue, early access, lenient embargos, free games or numerous other positives facilitated by the people who have an interest in this kind of article.

That guy who I hate from Kotaku, Stephen Totilo flipped out on Gaf either today or yesterday. Brilliant.

Oh, here we go with the white-knighting accusations AND the Staydead defence, all in one! Strong argument, guys. Well done.

Staydead defence? :lol:

I keep seeing the phrase "Staydead defence" but I don't actually know what it means.

Dig Dug wrote:I keep seeing the phrase "Staydead defence" but I don't actually know what it means.

"I was only pretending to be retarded/ I was joking"

Somebody Else's Problem wrote:Oh, here we go with the white-knighting accusations AND the Staydead defence, all in one! Strong argument, guys. Well done.

I don't see you throwing defamation accusations around the various photoshops of Geoff Keighley.

I think the very fact that Skippy had to ask if it was a joke shows that someone, somewhere will take it seriously.

Well we can't have jokes if not everybody will understand them.

$ilva $hadow wrote:strawberry floating Kotaku, a mass of fanboyism and paid for article by activision.

I agree that it looks bad. I don't know how Kotaku runs, but I would imagine that's just an unfortunate coincidence. From what I know - and it's limited, because I've always been freelance since I started writing about games - what the ad men do and what writers do is kept entirely separate. It's the perception that it's not that's the problem, and writers have to change to rebuild the trust so that instances like this not only occur less frequently, but that when they do people don't automatically think it's a paid-for piece.

Without advertising, these sites simply wouldn't exist. Advertising like that is one of those necessary evils I've been talking about, and it will continue to be necessary unless and until readers decide to pay for content on sites that don't carry ads.

As a number of other writers I follow on Twitter have said, this whole thing has made me want to change the way I do things. That's all I can really say. I hope that counts for something, however small. It's a long road, I know.

Re: "no swag has ever affected my opinion."

In response to some guy who said its perfectly possible to get cool gifts and write a negative review.

Shawn Elliott wrote:Not at all. It's interesting that your defense is to dismiss the notion that influence works in subtle ways that we aren't always aware of (as opposed to the popular notion of blatant bribery and "money hats") as generalization, and then use as your argument the assumption that any PR interaction at all would have to guarantee a good review if in fact the psychological research was right. That is gross generalization... or you just aren't getting the argument. I can't offer a crash course on the topic at the moment as I'm at work, so instead imagine it from the "appearance of impropriety" angle.

You're publishing a review. Pretend you're willing to include a sidebar with the subhead "Things that can have no influence at all on my perspective." In this sidebar are photos of you sharing single malt Scotch and haute cuisine with PR people. There are photos of the array of tchotchkes you received at the assorted press events for the title that you attended. There are also photos taken from your night out with your hosts. Despite your confidence in you being the rare exception to rules about human behavior, how likely is your audience to come to the same conclusion?

Apparently, judges' glucose levels affect their rulings: http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/no...ons-of-judges/
And yet you expect your audience to regard you as a Randian ubermensch rational above your biology.

This is a very good post.

Here's a screengrab of one of the less interesting links, which is nonetheless absolutely hilarious by it's description:

rudderless wrote:Without advertising, these sites simply wouldn't exist. Advertising like that is one of those necessary evils I've been talking about, and it will continue to be necessary unless and until readers decide to pay for content on sites that don't carry ads.

I'm sure people would pay for stuff on websites if any of it was actually worth reading.

EDIT: People buy Edge for example, not for their reviews, but mostly for their well researched features and looks in to the industry/certain games. I used to buy edge for the features because that's actually journalism. People pay for good journalism and sites like Kotaku wouldn't ever have people pay for them as they never do any.

People pay for GiantBomb.

Harry Bizzle wrote:People pay for GiantBomb.

Mafro wrote:
Harry Bizzle wrote:People pay for GiantBomb.

I think the majority of people who pay for Giant Bomb pay for the excessive amounts of content they give (especially their videos) and although I hate most of the Giant Bro staff, some people actually really like them.

#NewGamesJournalism: Lauren Wainwright sacked.

Who is online

Affiliates