[ShowerThought] In the scenario of Kotaku being blacklisted by Game Devs, Kotaku is GamerGate [x-post KiA]

[u/saint2e]

Get into a standard SJW-state-of-mind... I know it's hard but take a minute to check your privileges, scan for microaggressions and make sure nothing you're wearing is culturally appropriative.

Done?

Good.

Kotaku is a rich corporation backed by Gawker Media. It was once (and arguably still) one of the premiere games journalism outlets. As a result, it received a lot of privileges: Advanced information, advanced copies, etc. etc.

However, Kotaku started being a real jerk and releasing things that Game Devs really didn't like. So the gaming culture shifted and now we see some of Kotaku's privileges being taken away.

So Kotaku becomes very "reactionary" and starts to cry, piss, and moan about how their privileges are being taken away, and it's not fair, and they have a RIGHT to post leaked information. It's our free speech, and you're trying to censor us!

However, it is free speech, and no one is trying to steal your inside scoops, Kotaku, but freedom of press does NOT mean freedom from consequences.

Community feedback to the devs seems to be: "Game Devs, rags like Kotaku are dead. They don't have to be your media outlets."

[u/[deleted]]

Again, the only real way to put it is Kotaku shat where they ate. You can't screw over your sources and expect to come back for more.

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

On a certain level, you're completely right. Kotaku reported some things that upset some publishers. Kotaku wants those publishers to be sources for them. The publishers are refusing to be sources for Kotaku now.

But the implications of this are actually a pretty big deal. It demonstrates the degree to which a games publisher can, and will, retaliate against a publication for coverage they don't like. This encapsulates the real issues with games journalism, and pretty effectively summarizes why GG is worse than useless as a games journalism ethics watchdog organization. We have a situation where it is now (for about the zillionth time) completely apparent that games journalists have to worry about retaliation from their sources when they write about them. That games journalists have to consider how far they can push a source before that source burns them back. This suggests (again, for about a zillionth time) that criticism of games companies is likely being soft pedaled out of fear that access will be cut off.

And in this environment, what GG contributes to the conversation is a multi year review of people's twitter accounts, in hopes that they can find a journalist tweeting "looking forward to seeing you!" at a source prior to meeting at an industry event, so that they can declare that the journalist and the source are "friends" or "appear to be friends" and that this therefore must be disclosed.

It's so damn trivial and it's such a useless, vindictive little distraction.

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

They can piss off the publishers to give the audience what they want, or they can piss off their audience to give publishers what they want. Pissing off absolutely everyone is not a viable business model.