Kotaku claims to be blacklisted by Bethesda and Ubisoft

[binary solo]

mornelithe said:

binary solo said:

Did you watch the video? Of course the publishers have the choice, that's not the issue. The issue is whether blacklisting is a helpful or harmful tactic in the broader scheme of things and whether us as the ultimate source of the profits for game companies are well served by publishers thinking they can blacklist media outlets for whatever reason they want. You might be able to argue that this blacklisting was somewhat justified, but blacklisting has been done for some very dodgy reasons, bad reviews, and the more publishers think they can blacklist with gamers on their side the more they will do it and the worse off we'll be.

It's kind of ironic that people who supported the so-called aims of #GG regarding journalistic ethics (which basically amounts to media colluding with publishers to give good press for games) are basically in support of this tactic, which is exactly one way for game companies to exert pressure on gaming media to give good press. The threat of blacklisting puts gaming media on notice to be more positive towards the publishers.

Blacklisting is generaly an abusive practice and gamers should be generally opposed to it, regardless of what they think about the behaviour of the media outlet concerned. Kotaku may be a rare case where it is justified. But I tend to err on the side of being highly sceptical about the companies doing the blacklisting because business trying to control the media is a dangerous thing for the consumer.

Why would I watch a video of someone who supports Doxxing?   His opinions are irrelevant to me, and I've already linked an article and a video that are more in line with my thoughts on the matter.

Bottom line though, this isn't an ethics thing, this is about two different rights.  Freedom of Speech, Kotaku's right to publish whatever they want.  And Freedom of Association - Bethesda and Ubisoft's right to associate with whomever they desire.   This isn't about writers sleeping with people they cover, covering ex/current roommates, or taking money from Publishers/Devs for favorable reviews.  The claim here is that because Kotaku chose to reveal two titles that hadn't been announced yet, those Pubs decided not to do business with them any longer.  Both actions are ethically and legally allowed.

No he doesn't, https://m.ask.fm/Jimquisition/answers/129585918178 a stupid thing to say at the time, but he has clarified and I'm satisfied with his explanation as lame as he was in the first place, and as lame an excuse as it is. I hate "but it was just a joke" excuses, but if it really was a terrible attempt at sarcasm then I accept it at the same time as being very disappointed in him for what he initially said and how he said it.

Anyway, unless you are legally bound to conform to a code of ethics, like lawyers or doctors, then "ethically allowed" is meaningless. And indeed I completely disagree with you on the point that either sides' actions were ethically OK. If you actually believe Kotaku was ethically OK to do what it has been said they did, then surely you would say the blacklisting is an extreme and unethical over-reaction on the parts of Ubi and Bethesda, legal, yes, ethical no. And if you think that what Kotaku is said to have done is ethically dodgy then does that mean it is ethically passable for publishers to use an inherently ethically dodgy practice in response.

Blacklisting of media has a much borader context than this one case and it is a very problematic action because it has strong implications of corruption, collusion, and suppression.  And it would worry me greatly if other games media swung in behind Ubi and Bethesda in supporting the blacklisting. I do note with interest that the gamezone article doesn't directly support Bethesda's and Ubisoft's actions, and it is a reasonable critique of Kotaku's action. But I think most readers are taking that Op-ed as a tacit endorsement of blacklisting as a media control tactic, and that's a concern.