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.