Ariel Connor · @MissAngerist
6th Sep 2014 from TwitLonger
What #GamerGate wanted, under the new aegis of #gameethics
The purpose of this post is simple: To serve as a concise link to all of the perceived indiscretions among the gaming media that led to the outcry known as GamerGate. Ideally it should serve as a single go-to location so that everyone knows EXACTLY what I am talking about when I claim that ethical standards need to be overhauled. I am not serving as a mouthpiece for gamers, nor am I attempting to defend the harassers, trolls, misogynists, and numerous other bigots that are still festering within the original GamerGate movement at this time of writing. This is just a (by no means exhaustive) compilation of the missteps that provoked this response.
S#1 a) - Personal Relationships Between Journalists and the Developers they Cover.
It's not unheard of for people in the same industry to be friends, nor is it surprising in any way. Political correspondents know the politicians they cover, sometimes quite well. However the SPJ ethics code (http://www.spj.org/ethicscode.asp) clearly states that journalists are supposed to avoid 'conflicts of interest, real or perceived.' For games journalism this would imply that journalists should not write posts about people who are in any way close to them, romantically or otherwise. Yes, journalists are still capable of criticising their friends' work fairly, I don't doubt that. However a perceived conflict of interests forces the reader to accept on faith that the author is being 100% honest. If a conflict of interests is TOTALLY unavoidable, then full disclosure of any friendships/ties should be given in the preamble to any articles written. Here are some examples of conflicts of interest that bear further scrutiny:
- Anthony Burch claims that his friends from Destructoid reviewed projects that he worked on (needs verification but he is self-incriminating in this tweet): https://twitter.com/reverendanthony/status/507381413721939968
- Nathan Grayson of Kotaku was friends with a game developer (but not romantically involved) when he wrote a piece that gave her positive press. http://kotaku.com/in-recent-days-ive-been-asked-several-times-about-a-pos-1624707346
- Kotaku Writer Patricia Hernandez has written articles that included links to purchasing pages about her friends' games. I'm linking to r/games for this as it includes a chronology of tweets as well as links to all of the offending literature: http://www.reddit.com/r/Games/comments/2ejs7v/gaming_journalists_patricia_hernandez_of_kotaku/
The articles in question have since had disclaimers disclosing the ties between author and developer; however this is too little, too late and should never be allowed to happen again, even with full disclosure.
There are other examples of this out there. If you scan through twitter you will see many people claiming that 'everyone knows everyone' in games journalism and the indie scene, making such complaints null and void. This is deflecting from the issue, however. Games developers live and work all over the world. To claim that a close knit group of indie devs and journos supporting one another is a-ok when all of these other talented people are being cut out of the clique is simply insulting.
S#1 b) What's the solution?
1) Recuse if any close ties exist and pass the writing of the article to someone else
2) If 1) is simply IMPOSSIBLE, fully disclose any relationships in the preamble so that the reader knows about any ties in advance
3) If 1) and 2) are not followed, any transgressors should be subjected to the same disciplinary measures in place elsewhere in journalism. It should NOT be shrugged off as endemic to gaming, or an inevitable product of the gaming scene's social framework. This is nonsense.
S#2 a) Financial Supporting of Devs via Patreon
Writers, editors and journalists have made widespread use of Patreon as a means of financial support for the Devs they cover. This is not a secret, indeed Polygon and Kotaku have issued statements regarding this: http://www.polygon.com/forums/meta/2014/8/26/6071669/on-patreon-support
Kotaku has claimed that Patreon support will be cut off forthwith; Polygon has promised to disclose financial ties but not inhibit them through any change in policy.
However this is simply not good enough. Unlike Kickstarter, which may possibly be compared to pre-ordering a game (as long as only a MINIMUM amount is given PURELY for professional purposes) Patreon is a no-strings monthly stipend paid into the account of the content creator by those who wish to support said content creator in their endeavours. It represents a clear example of 'closeness' between journalists and developers (which should be subject to the corrections proposed in S#1b) above) and should be discontinued to prevent any conflict of interests.
S#2 b) What's the solution?
If not discontinued, then any writer who financially supports a dev IN ANY WAY should recuse themselves and allow a colleague to cover them instead. All proxy Patreon support should be disclosed if this happens. Note: Joystiq has a full ban on authors Patreon support. Anyone found to be flouting such rules should be subjected to disciplinary procedures and held accountable for the conflict of interests. All major websites should publish an ethics code similar to this one http://techraptor.net/techraptor-ethics-policies/ to ensure maximum transparency and clarity.
FROM THIS POINT ON WE ARE VENTURING INTO SOME OF ARIEL'S PET PEEVES, NOT NECESSARILY ISSUES THAT CAME UP WITH #GamerGate
S#3 Swag/Tat/Gifts/ANY kind of quid pro quo between Writers and Devs/PR People
It is well known that games journalists receive large amounts of swag from devs, publishers and PR agents representing publishers. Jim Sterling has gone on record saying that it in no way affects his reviews and even leaves him with a bitter taste in his mouth if the game happens to be terrible (since he then has a perceived piece of garbage sitting on his shelf instead of a collectible treasure). With all due respect, Jim, that's not good enough. Polygon has written into its ethics code that journos are actually ALLOWED to accept gifts up to a cost of 50 dollars! ALL swag/merchandise received by journos should be either returned or used as prizes in giveaways. This goes DOUBLE for merchandise from AAA studios, which by virtue of their gargantuan marketing budgets will tend to be more enticing than anything an indie developer might offer.
S#4 Character Assassination ('Hit Pieces')
I first believed that the main problems faced by devs and prominent people in the gaming sphere came from anonymous internet trolls and harassers. That's still the case. However a worrying fact emerged from the airing of dirty laundry that occurred on the internet a few weeks ago: many of the prominent gaming sites have absolutely no problem publishing personal attacks on people who are perceived to be transgressors. This is tabloid journalism, not games journalism, even if it is related to gaming. An example of this would be Brad Wardell (https://twitter.com/draginol) who was accused of sexual harassment but ultimately vindicated in court. He claims that Kotaku published a 'hit piece' on him that led to him receiving death threats, and even to his child being bullied at school. This is not what gamers want from games journalists - clickbait articles that throw people under the bus without the inconvenience of supplying sufficient evidence to substantiate the claims. A certain indie developer at the centre of the recent scandal was afforded ample protection from hit pieces of this nature, and rightly so; let's make this the standard for EVERYONE.
The bottom line is that games journalism should be about GAMES, and as free from ethical lapses as humanly possible. This is not demanding the earth and the sky; we are not asking for mountains to be moved. As someone who has followed this 'scandal' from the start, I want to see real change. The points outlined above should really have been addressed 3 weeks ago in an open and transparent manner. Consider the following point: if this had been done from the outset, the drama, harassment and illegal activity of the past few weeks could have possibly been avoided.
I no doubt have left some issues out of this. I didn't touch on allegations of corruption in the IGF or Indiecade, nor did I touch on the dilemma of asking writers and public figures on twitter to conduct themselves in a professional manner. But these are also issues and I encourage you to make twitlongers and videos and articles about them! Let's open up the discussion, avoid harassment, and TALK about all of this.