#NewGamesJournalism: Lauren Wainwright sacked.

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.

Harry Bizzle wrote: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:

See, Chris, this is what I was saying God knows how many pages back when I called it terrifying. I unfortunately blinked and it was lost in a swathe of new pages.

But to see any form of journalism avoided because a journalist likes all the people involved and doesn't want to comment is just depressing.

This is not a swipe at Canton by any means, but what happens when a journalist "likes" the PR guy who they've known for years and are actually friends with?


Remember back when Ryan Payton was on the MGS team? He was more of a friend than a PR guy to the 1Up crew. He still goes on their podcasts because they're so pally with him. But he's always got a game to talk about.

What happens when his new game is ass? Will they rip it to shreds like they would a game made by someone who they don't know? Will Mark McDonald make loads of his trademark snarky remarks as they all sit around and laugh at it on 8-4 Play? Of course not.



I really hope his game doesn't suck though. I've backed it.

You'd hope that in that scenario the writer was professional enough to put aside any 'feelings' and do their job. And you'd also hope that the PR guy was grown-up enough to realise the difference between someone doing their job and someone being his friend. For some shitty 'hobby sites' maybe that isn't the case, but anything less than that on the pro sites wouldn't be acceptable (or shouldn't be).

Oof.





That would be absolutely oarsome.

This stuff is literally more interesting than actual games.

Skarjo wrote:See, Chris, this is what I was saying God knows how many pages back when I called it terrifying. I unfortunately blinked and it was lost in a swathe of new pages.

But to see any form of journalism avoided because a journalist likes all the people involved and doesn't want to comment is just depressing.

No, that's enormously reductive. I explained here and elsewhere, if you actually read the thread instead of skimming from your own 'terrifying' post (which I addressed) to this one, that's a very small part of the reason I haven't written about it. Except I have now, in detail, on this forum. Again, I'm not sure why it's my responsibility to do so given my lack of involvement in the whole exercise. I wasn't at the GMAs, I didn't tweet anything about the PS3, I have very few dealings with PRs, I attend even fewer events.

I find it hilarious that you had nothing to say on the matter and felt the need to say that, which has been construed as not saying what you wanted to say out of loyalty.


Basically, you should have just kept your mouth shut.

Harry Bizzle wrote:I find it hilarious that you had nothing to say on the matter and felt the need to say that, which has been construed as not saying what you wanted to say out of loyalty.

Basically, you should have just kept your mouth shut.

We're going round in circles now. That's been said before, and I've acknowledged that.

Totilo has sadly rejected GAFs kind offer, which is very surprising to me.

chalkitdown wrote:Totilo has sadly rejected GAFs kind offer, which is very surprising to me.

He's doing his own, apparently.

It's actually a shame. I'd be much more interested in an article put together by GAF than anything written by him or the hacks that work for him.

rudderless wrote:Right. So the fact that I like both of them - I wouldn't call either friends, not least because I've had run-ins with both on Twitter before - is just a part of why I wouldn't write it. But mostly because it's an issue I - as someone who very rarely deals with PRs and even less frequently attends gaming events - have very little experience of. I can't add anything meaningful to the conversation that hasn't already been said. Meanwhile, a load of factually incorrect blog pieces pop up, written by people displaying a lack of journalistic ethics by failing to adequately check the facts of the matter. That's not integrity, it's hypocrisy.

Quite apart from that, as a freelancer who writes almost exclusively about the games themselves rather than the industry or the politics that surrounds issues like this, why is it my 'responsibility' to write such a piece? Would you say it's Jonathan Ross's 'responsibility' to write about corruption in Hollywood because he presents a film show on TV? You're saying the failure of one writer who has no previous in talking about issues like this, hasn't actually defended Lauren beyond saying that the dog's abuse she got from Twitter was unfair, and has actually made a point of saying there are lessons that can and will be learned here, to write a blog post about a matter that I think is worth more than just a knee-jerk reaction (there are subtleties to the issues here that I've still not completely made up my mind about) is 'terrifying'? Really?

rudderless wrote:No, that's enormously reductive. I explained here and elsewhere, if you actually read the thread instead of skimming from your own 'terrifying' post (which I addressed) to this one, that's a very small part of the reason I haven't written about it. Except I have now, in detail, on this forum. Again, I'm not sure why it's my responsibility to do so given my lack of involvement in the whole exercise. I wasn't at the GMAs, I didn't tweet anything about the PS3, I have very few dealings with PRs, I attend even fewer events.

I'm not saying it's your responsibility, if you had wanted to just stay out of it then you should have just stayed out of it. But you didn't, and, in fact, your refusal to comment on the situation because a)you weren't there and b)you quite like the people involved has been noted by people far outside the end of GGC.

You might say that you're not involved for spurious reasons about not going to many shows or didn't tweet about that specific PS3 or whatever but if you don't see how this is affecting perception of your job and role in the industry then I think you're being hugely naive. Further to that, whilst I would shy away from the word responsibility, I think it's absolutely in your own best interests to comment, clarify and expose.

This is being seen as an exposé of rampant corruption, paid-for reviews and poor journalistic ethics which has given the already poor name of games journalism a firm black eye. If I called myself a games journalist I would personally take that as an insult and I would want to clear up the situation, and if PRs and being regarded as too in bed with their critics then I would think you could see how a comment like 'I don't want to comment, not least because I like both parties' would be misconstrued.

As has been said, at the moment, PR and games journalism seems to be one big back-patting circle-jerk of self-protectionism. I, personally, think that achieving this is a PRs main directive and an ethical journalist's prime directive should be to prevent it. So when we have journalists seemingly wanting to not bad mouth their 'friends' the whole thing stinks of a spineless journalistic community not wanting to piss off their PR friends and watch the swag dry up. If I were you, who, I'm presuming, does not consider this to be the case, then I would be defending my integrity without a care to who gets pissed off. Nor do you have to have been in the room to comment on whether journos tweeting freely to get free gooseberry fool is a professional attitude.

Skarjo wrote:As has been said, at the moment, PR and games journalism seems to be one big back-patting circle-jerk of self-protectionism.

Not overly-dramatic at all

This whole thing has gone bat-shit insane.