"Ethics and Journalistic Integrity"

[Mangela Lansbury]

Imagine a situation where the company hires an artist to create some 3D models for them. The artist checks the internal company wiki and pulls down the game's script because it's available to them, they leak it to Kotaku for the lulz, and Kotaku publishes it for the pageviews. Can you defend a system that says the artist has no claim on the script, and would you condemn their choices?

You're assuming the worst intentions for everybody involved and framing this in a way that doesn't fault the company for not internally controlling information they don't want leaked by third party contractors. If you're going to pose a hypothetical, please frame it in a less rhetoric-laden way. Thanks in advance for helping keep the discourse here elevated!

[BusbyBerkeley]

This is good, keep running further and further into the insane hypothetical ethics conundrums rabbit hole.

[Ninety-Three]

You're assuming the worst intentions for everybody involved and framing this in a way that doesn't fault the company for not internally controlling information they don't want leaked by third party contractors. If you're going to pose a hypothetical, please frame it in a less rhetoric-laden way. Thanks in advance for helping keep the discourse here elevated!

 

I was phrasing for brevity, and an NDA was assumed. Let's try again, as impartial as can be.

 

Imagine a situation where the company hires an artist to join their company and create some 3D models for them. They make the artist sign an NDA regarding the game. The artist, of their own volition, checks the internal company wiki and pulls down the game's script. They leak it to Kotaku for reasons that we the non-psychic public cannot know, but those reasons are not "Something is Terribly Wrong and the public Needs To Know!" Kotaku publishes it for reasons that we the non-psychic public cannot know, but they also do not think "Something is Terribly Wrong and the public Needs To Know!". Can you defend a system that says the artist has no claim on the script, and would you condemn their choices?

This is not an insane hypothetical, it is a potentially accurate description of the Fallout 4 leak. The only speculation is on the specific nature of the leaker's job.

[jennegatron]

I think that person is pretty clearly in breach of their NDA, and can likely take legal action if they know who it is who leaked it, but I don't think Kotaku, or any other reporting organization has any obligation to not print that leak. I would much rather they act independently and not let Bethesda or anyone else bully them into not covering things the way their millions of dollars PR machines want them covered.

At least things come from legitimate sources as opposed to all the shit that Chris Broussard prints in sports 'journalism'

[Mangela Lansbury]

Once again, there's a failure to fault a company for not internally controlling information. If information control is so important to them, why would this hypothetical artist have uncontrolled access to all writing assets? If we the public can't know what the intentions of any parties are, how can we know that they didn't think something was terribly wrong that the public needed to know about? Why is "something is terribly wrong" the default metric for the acceptability of releasing leaked information? Why do the interests of one corporation's investment in one product seem to trump the interest of another corporation's investment in another product? Why is the model of the adversarial press ignored in the hypothetical, which instead seems to rhetorically favor a press that leans towards the beltway model?

[Gormongous]

Once again, there's a failure to fault a company for not internally controlling information. If information control is so important to them, why would this hypothetical artist have uncontrolled access to all writing assets? If we the public can't know what the intentions of any parties are, how can we know that they didn't think something was terribly wrong that the public needed to know about? Why is "something is terribly wrong" the default metric for the acceptability of releasing leaked information? Why do the interests of one corporation's investment in one product seem to trump the interest of another corporation's investment in another product? Why is the model of the adversarial press ignored in the hypothetical, which instead seems to rhetorically favor a press that leans towards the beltway model?

 

Yeah, the smell test for information leaked legitimately seems unreasonably and unrealistically rigorous here. I don't think there's a similar level of hand-wringing (and blacklisting) when the poster for a movie or some production stills are leaked. Why is "terribly wrong" the threshold for publication? Why isn't the public permitted to know what's going on in these companies, good or bad, if that information is available to independent outlets?

[Ninety-Three]

If we the public can't know what the intentions of any parties are, how can we know that they didn't think something was terribly wrong that the public needed to know about?

 

Based on their coverage, obviously Kotaku didn't think something was terribly wrong. I am making the assumption that had the leaker thought that, they would have communicated it to Kotaku, who would have in turn published it.

 

 

Why is "something is terribly wrong" the default metric for the acceptability of releasing leaked information?

 

I'm not saying it necessarily is, I'm establishing a detail that some may consider significant (since I've seen some discussion in this thread suggesting "It's more acceptable to leak if bad things are going on).

 

 

Once again, there's a failure to fault a company for not internally controlling information. If information control is so important to them, why would this hypothetical artist have uncontrolled access to all writing assets? ... Why is "something is terribly wrong" the default metric for the acceptability of releasing leaked information? Why do the interests of one corporation's investment in one product seem to trump the interest of another corporation's investment in another product? Why is the model of the adversarial press ignored in the hypothetical, which instead seems to rhetorically favor a press that leans towards the beltway model?

 

You're projecting an awful lot of your assumptions onto me. I made no statements regarding who was at fault or what was correct, all I did was present a hypothetical series of events and ask a question based on it. To repeat, in the above hypothetical, can you defend a system that says the artist has no claim on the script, and would you condemn their choices?

[thefncrow]

Based on their coverage, obviously Kotaku didn't think something was terribly wrong. I am making the assumption that had the leaker thought that, they would have communicated it to Kotaku, who would have in turn published it.

 

You're discounting the possibility that the leaker thought this was important information, and Kotaku went "Nah, not really, but there is something interesting here to report on".

 

Like, if you want to talk scenarios, what you're excluding is something like a No Mutants Allowed regular ends up in a place to get information about Fallout 4 and sends it over to Kotaku saying "You have to read this!  I guess Bethesda thought they didn't shit enough on Fallout making F3, and look what they're doing now!"  Kotaku's not obliged to accept and print the leaker's point of view in accepting and publishing the information.  If the information checks out as credible, and the organization perceives there to be value in running with the information they were provided, they run it and don't have to talk about how their source was maybe a bit unhinged in their appreciation for the pre-Bethesda iterations of the series.

 

You're projecting an awful lot of your assumptions onto me. I made no statements regarding who was at fault or what was correct, all I did was present a hypothetical series of events and ask a question based on it. To repeat, in the above hypothetical, can you defend a system that says the artist has no claim on the script, and would you condemn their choices?

 

If they can establish who leaked it, they can use the contractual language in their contracts to make a case against the leaker.  And if the actual script pages have been posted, then they can have a lawyer draft a letter asserting ownership over the script and demand it be taken down.  But 1) that confirms the leak, because you have to admit it's yours to demand it come down, and 2) it doesn't stop any outlet from discussing the contents of the script, just from them posting the actual script.  And I could even add 3) this is the internet age, and so nothing can really be taken off the internet for good, so getting someone to pull down a scanned page from a script isn't going to make it disappear. 

 

That is the extent of how far their claim to the script goes.  It protects the script itself, but doesn't apply to people talking about the content of the script unless they've signed legal documents saying they won't.

 

(EDIT: For removing inadvertant smiley and adding important qualifier)

[Mangela Lansbury]

You're projecting an awful lot of your assumptions onto me. I made no statements regarding who was at fault or what was correct, all I did was present a hypothetical series of events and ask a question based on it. To repeat, in the above hypothetical, can you defend a system that says the artist has no claim on the script, and would you condemn their choices?

 

Something not explicitly stated in a text can still be present in the text. Trying to wave away obvious rhetorical bent with further rhetoric kind of just exposes the emptiness of what you want to say.

 

If you want to argue for a point, go ahead and argue it. Don't pose a question for the purpose of poking holes in the opposing argument. It's a pretty nonproductive way to hold a conversation, and conversations -- unlike reported by/reported on relations -- should not be adversarial.

[Ninety-Three]

If you want to argue for a point, go ahead and argue it. Don't pose a question for the purpose of poking holes in the opposing argument. It's a pretty nonproductive way to hold a conversation, and conversations -- unlike reported by/reported on relations -- should not be adversarial.

 

Once again you are making significant assumptions about what I'm doing. I was responding to this post from Deadpan, which I quoted in my original post:

 

I doubt it's a system I'd want to defend...

there are few circumstances I can think of where I'd condemn their choice.

I was posing a question for the purpose of understanding what he had said and getting some elaboration upon it.

[Mawd]

From what I understand some companies actually rely on leaks to further a discourse from non official positions so they can prep an audience for a flashy press release. #notAllLeeks

[itsamoose]

I feel like some of the pro kotaku positions come from the perspective of journalists dealing with a government. There is no contract between publishers and press, no formal agreements of any kind, so I don't quite understand why this is a question of right and wrong. Kotaku did something a publisher didn't like, so they decided they were no longer going to work with kotaku, spend the money to bring them to events, give them review code, etc. This doesn't strike me as a moral conundrum so much as just what happens when people do things you don't like.

[Deadpan]

It's a little misleading to look at this choice in isolation though, when the real issue isn't publishers not working with one specific outlet (something Kotaku managed to do well regardless of), but publishers playing favorites this way in order to influence what is written about their games and when. It's similar to how they like giving early access and exclusives to writers who are known to already like the series, so that there's a very narrow range of opinions floating around before launch, or possibly after. These practices may not be anything close to illegal, but they're not something discerning readers should be happy about.

[itsamoose]

Isn't that just what people do though? Try to paint themselves in the best light, always? If anything the onus is on kotaku to resist that kind of thing, publishers are just representing their interests in that case. As I understand it the situation now rests at a point where kotaku are no longer receiving gifts from these publishers, and I just can't make the connection as to how this is representative or in some way part of a question of ethics.

[Deadpan]

It may be an understandable thing to do, but that doesn't mean we need to be supportive of that goal or help them accomplish it. A lot of people have been talking about their interests, or Kotaku's interest, but for me it just comes down to my own interest, which is to have access to unfettered critical writing, and that's why I prefer publishers don't attach unreasonable expectations to their support.

 

To me, saying the onus is on Kotaku to resist that kind of thing is like saying the onus is on individual employees at a company to resist downsizing, pay cuts, or shitty workplace policies. Maybe that's something you can do if you have, say, a union and public support to back you up, but without those things you quickly end up with a shitty system that everybody is going along with because they see no alternative if they want thrive. For any individual it's almost impossible to change or resist the status quo, that's why it took a site the size of Kotaku to do something like this in the first place.

 

Well, "gifts". Perhaps you could look at it as getting access to their products in exchange for the service they provide, and then look at that as analogous to how you and I get access to Kotaku's products, their writing, in exchange for the service we provide in looking at ads. You can see how there's a value judgement about the importance of games journalism encoded in this, right? The general attitude being that it's facile or banal is part of the reason why sites don't really get to assert their position opposite publishers. The only leverage they have is in the audience they represent, and if that crowd keeps going "whatever" when the two other corners of this triangle end up butting heads, well...

[Ninety-Three]

You can see how there's a value judgement about the importance of games journalism encoded in this, right? The general attitude being that it's facile or banal is part of the reason why sites don't really get to assert their position opposite publishers.

 

The problem is games journalism largely is facile and banal. The overwhelming majority of it consists of either parroting developer press releases/leaks, or "Is this worth my money?" consumer-guide reviews (serious question: do consumer guides count as journalism?). Almost everything they do takes the form of "Step 1:Get a thing from the developers, Step 2: Write about it." They don't get to assert their position because developers have all the power in that system.

[osmosisch]

As far as I'm concerned, Bethesda is free to blacklist Kotaku, who in turn are free to publish anything they receive from any source, and are also free to share the fact that they've been blacklisted.

I think blacklisting a site in general is a shitty move, but meh.

[itsamoose]

It may be an understandable thing to do, but that doesn't mean we need to be supportive of that goal or help them accomplish it. A lot of people have been talking about their interests, or Kotaku's interest, but for me it just comes down to my own interest, which is to have access to unfettered critical writing, and that's why I prefer publishers don't attach unreasonable expectations to their support.

To me, saying the onus is on Kotaku to resist that kind of thing is like saying the onus is on individual employees at a company to resist downsizing, pay cuts, or shitty workplace policies. Maybe that's something you can do if you have, say, a union and public support to back you up, but without those things you quickly end up with a shitty system that everybody is going along with because they see no alternative if they want thrive. For any individual it's almost impossible to change or resist the status quo, that's why it took a site the size of Kotaku to do something like this in the first place.

Well, "gifts". Perhaps you could look at it as getting access to their products in exchange for the service they provide, and then look at that as analogous to how you and I get access to Kotaku's products, their writing, in exchange for the service we provide in looking at ads. You can see how there's a value judgement about the importance of games journalism encoded in this, right? The general attitude being that it's facile or banal is part of the reason why sites don't really get to assert their position opposite publishers. The only leverage they have is in the audience they represent, and if that crowd keeps going "whatever" when the two other corners of this triangle end up butting heads, well...

I'm not sure the comparison to being downsized is fair, especially when the two parties involved don't have any kind of a contract with one another. Publishers work with press, and vice versa, because that relationship is mutually beneficial. When it stops being so, I don't see why ending it constitutes some kind of negative action. Yes press sites can help sell a game, but remember when devs showcase their games to journalists it is done entirely at their own expense. They pay for food, travel, lodging, people to handle the event, devs' time for interviews, or whatever expenses are entailed in the event. I don't know what to call these things other than gifts, it's just that press sites choose to only label physical things they are given as gifts which to me is disingenuous. Like Osmosich said both parties are free to do as they will, and you can make of that what you will, but I just don't see how this is anything other than one party choosing to no longer engage another. You might look at the situation and see callousness on the part of Bethesda or ambivalence on the part of Kotaku, but it's not like either party has crossed some ethical boundary.

[Reyturner]

From what I understand some companies actually rely on leaks to further a discourse from non official positions so they can prep an audience for a flashy press release. #notAllLeeks

That sounds like some grade A

[Mawd]

That sounds like some grade A

I forget the specifics but some seniors at companies like Capcom or Nintendo 'leak' info through twitter to help build buzz for x or y thing. I think one of the examples involved sending through a vision document for a Resident Evil 2 re-release.

The tone here at the time seemed like leeks were fairly wrong to report on and I'm trying to see situations where leaks are useful especially when they build hype for the hype gods and break the ice for a bigger discussion in the eventual release.

I'd think that some leaks that aren't publisher friendly but are useful for consumers to know about might be things like Until Dawn's on rails shooter DLC; I'm sure it's pretty benign in the scale of things but it's the only one coming to me right now; aside from the whole Konami thing.

[Merus]

I think it's a little gross to say multi-billion dollar companies deciding to freeze out people who don't portray them in the light they've decided is most optimal for parting customers from their money is about the same as not being friends with someone who gossips too much.

 

It's the pettiness of the leaks that grabs me. We're not talking about Denis Dyack here, a tool that Kotaku nailed to the wall for malfeasance. These leaks were about a new Assassin's Creed and a new Fallout game, both things that were as inevitable as the rising sun, and for those franchises, the details are completely irrelevant. Assassin's Creed is set where? Will you still climb up a tower to reveal the map, and will it involve a stupid conspiracy, repurposing of historical figures and the sense that you've played this game at least three times before? (Yes.) Does it matter, exactly, what the name of the town that Fallout 4 used to be in is called? (No.)

 

The development of a software product just isn't news, and it's sad that everyone pretends it is.

[jennegatron]

The pettiness of the leak cuts both ways though, right? Yeah it may be small potatoes for Kotaku to report on and why would you risk your relationship with a developer/publisher for something as small as revealing that Fallout 4 would be in Boston, but why would a developer/publisher blacklist someone for reporting on a small leak?

 

I think the development of a software product is news because enthusiast press has an audience, the same way that it's news who is suspected to be in the cast in the new Fantastic Four movie because there's an audience for it. I agree that those things are uninteresting to me, but that doesn't mean it doesn't mean something to someone.

[feelthedarkness]

To a point, the publishers need to do something right? If they want publications to adhere to review embargoes than they need to take some kind of action against publications that don't play along, if the leaked marketing stuff was set to be released to other people at different times. 

 

I think there is a real problem with the press functioning as a defacto marketing arm, and I wonder if we wouldn't be better off if there weren't embargoes. Let the people rush reviews to market, and let people develop real taste for writers who's opinion they value? That's what movies do, basically, right? 

[Deadpan]

EDIT: Nevermind this, made the same joke as somebody else by accident.

[Vainamoinen]

/double post