.@katerussell It's about ethics in journalism. Right? #GamerGate
So, it's like this...
As you all know, since July I have been looking into the Star Citizen fiasco, and with a team of researchers, and sources, have been forming a picture of a project that is FUBAR. And taking tons of flak for it.
I have written a total of six blogs on my website (http://dereksmart.com). The short version:
Ten days ago, Kate Russell crashed my feed asking who I was.
There was some minimal exchange, I checked out her feed, moved on. She appeared legit, her Tweets were interesting and eclectic.
Over the past weekend, I did an impromptu YouTube stream. It was hilarious.
Anyway, so less than a day later, Kate sent out a tweet which appeared in my feed. She'd made a parody video out of the video I had flagged private. Her video which btw, called me an "idiot" at the end. So much for parody. But it is what it is.
You can read about the whole thing here: http://pastebin.com/i8pHTCU6
Anyway, last night it came to my attention that she may have been motivated to make this video (which most people think casts her in a poor light btw, and is conduct unbecoming) as an "attack" piece due to her trying to get or working on a Star Citizen book deal.
I was not aware of this prior, though I was aware that she had done a book for Elite Dangerous.
Kate and I have had decent and articulate DM exchanges (no, I am not going to make hers public - so don't ask). After I reached out to her following her Tweet about the video, the gist of her lengthy response boiled down to this:
Your attacks on Star Citizen also attack crowd funding as a concept, and for the public to lose faith in that on such a grand scale would be a massive blow to indie content producers in every genre. That’s why I decided to make a parody from your publicly posted video - to bring some smiles and levity to a large group of people who are just trying to make a game to entertain us.
Regardless of her best intentions, she appears to be completely misguided and uninformed.
And it is clear that she really jumped into this without fully understanding HOW we got here.
Either that, or they somehow managed to ship her some of that Kool-Aid that RSI/CIG have been passing around. For such an articulate and eloquent person, I don't have any other explanation tbh.
This was my entire first DM response to Kate:
It is interesting to note that, Kate, like most people who didn't know who I was before now, had this preconceived idea and impression of who I was. So naturally, as she pointed out in our exchange, my responses were not as expected. I dunno, she was probably expecting anger, rage or whatever.
Here's the thing that people still don't get. I do not encourage bullying, harassment or attacks. Everything has context. People who have dialog with me, know that I am very easy to get along with once you approach me in a manner that leads to meaningful discourse. In the 30 yrs that I have been in this industry, this hasn't changed. Which is why I am one of the most visible and outspoken indiedevs still around. And it's the very people who say stupid shit, who cry foul when they get it back in kind. Then they go roust up their dumb buddies to amplify the noise. That's how bullying works.
Which is how the vocal members of the dumb sect that is the Star Citizen White Knight confetti house (which I've pretty much burned to the ground, because that's what I do when attacked), helped to amply this noise since my first blog appeared back in July. Amateurs.
So while Kate is well within her rights to do and say as she pleases, as a BBC-UK tech reporter, it appears to me that, regardless of what she does in her own time, there has to be a line between morality and personal gain. And when it comes to ethics in journalism, that line doesn't get blurred when you're no longer on the clock. Other journos have got into trouble for less; even when they weren't on the clock.
To be clear, I harbor no personal ill toward Kate; but these new revelations, regardless of merit, cannot be ignored. After all, we should all be held to the same or similar standards because what's good for the Goose, should be good for the Gander. I'm old school like that.
ps: I am working with YouTube to get Kate's parody video restored. Not because I was wrong to have it removed, but because as a content creator and owner of the video, what I do with it is entirely up to ME. And in this regard, my having it restored is me exercising that choice. Similar to the choice I would have made had I been asked for permission to use my work.