PC Gamer: Let’s stop calling ourselves the “PC Master Race”
246 replies, posted
[QUOTE=Juniez;46939719]if you can find me even one article of his stance having conflicted and changed during the relationship then I will surely believe you
[editline]15th January 2015[/editline]
none of the articles have been deleted yet; it shouldn't be hard[/QUOTE]
Have we honestly reached the point where people say conflicts of interest don't matter in journalism and instead we have to prove they created a problem with this specific case?
I fucking hate this subforum.
[QUOTE=Juniez;46939719]if you can find me even one article of his stance having conflicted and changed during the relationship then I will surely believe you
[editline]15th January 2015[/editline]
none of the articles have been deleted yet; it shouldn't be hard[/QUOTE]
That doesn't matter, if he really cared about his integrity at all he would disclose all potential conflicts from the start - it's basic ethical code. As you say, there can never be any evidence of him being influenced, neither can there be of him not, which is why you disclose it so people know there was a potential conflict - not disclosing it will just make people suspicious of wrongdoing, as we are.
Your argument that he didn't breach any ethical policies is wrong, he didn't disclose a personal relationship with an employee of a company he is meant to be covering and making stories on. I really can't say anything else now - it's a conflict of interest and it must be disclosed.
[QUOTE=Juniez;46939719]if you can find me even one article of his stance having conflicted and changed during the relationship then I will surely believe you
[editline]15th January 2015[/editline]
none of the articles have been deleted yet; it shouldn't be hard[/QUOTE]
At this point it's hard for me to believe you're not willfully ignorant. It doesn't matter if he changed his stance because of a possible conflict of interest, what matters is that a conflict of interest existed in the first place (and thus that he didn't disclose it).
Gotta love this amiright
This guy states his opinion,community responds digging up dirt to try and fuck him over
[QUOTE=Juniez;46939719]
none of the articles have been deleted yet; it shouldn't be hard[/QUOTE]
[url]http://www.pcgamer.com/2014/04/24/watch-dogs-video-preview/[/url]
[url]http://web.archive.org/web/20140425224231/http://www.pcgamer.com/2014/04/24/watch-dogs-video-preview/[/url]
Arguing about whether it influenced his review is completely missing the point of disclosing such a thing in the first place.
What I'm a little bit confused about is why we're discussing his relationships in this thread at all, as the article has absolutely nothing to do with Ubisoft at all.
I highly doubt the author intentionally wrote biased articles because of his blogger-girlfriend, especially from what I've gathered about how "pro-ubisoft" they were after reading through the posts in this thread.
Should he have disclosed the relationship? Probably, but maybe he just thought it wouldn't affect his writing and decided to try to keep it low-key instead of bringing the spotlight on him and his relationship, especially with the whole gamergate thing going on.
From what I've gathered he didn't put any special effort into keeping it secret until after he was attacked by a mob of angry gamers, so I don't find it especially suspicious that he removed the "evidence" of it. Maybe not the best approach, or even particularly rational, but understandable when you're suddenly under attack for writing a [B]completely unrelated[/B] article.
[QUOTE=LarparNar;46940066]What I'm a little bit confused about is why we're discussing his relationships in this thread at all, as the article has absolutely nothing to do with Ubisoft at all.
I highly doubt the author intentionally wrote biased articles because of his blogger-girlfriend, especially from what I've gathered about how "pro-ubisoft" they were after reading through the posts in this thread.
[B]Should he have disclosed the relationship? [/B]Probably, but maybe he just thought it wouldn't affect his writing and decided to try to keep it low-key instead of bringing the spotlight on him and his relationship, especially with the whole gamergate thing going on.
From what I've gathered he didn't put any special effort into keeping it secret until after he was attacked by a mob of angry gamers, so I don't find it especially suspicious that he removed the "evidence" of it. Maybe not the best approach, or even particularly rational, but understandable when you're suddenly under attack for writing a [B]completely unrelated[/B] article.[/QUOTE]
This isn't really up for debate. He should have disclosed it. It's absolutely human nature to associate things that are somewhat related in your head and have them impact your views of them in a non rational manner. It's well documented and its called the Halo Effect [url]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halo_effect[/url].
*edit: Because we know this exists, he should have disclosed it because humans, even though its possible that he knew about the existence of the Halo Effect, can't really correct for it in an unbiased manner (lens that can see its own flaws) and therefore the only correct thing to do is to give the audience this information so that they can decide for themselves.
[QUOTE=Kybalt;46940113]This isn't really up for debate. He should have disclosed it. It's absolutely human nature to associate things that are somewhat related in your head and have them impact your views of them in a non rational manner. It's well documented and its called the Halo Effect [url]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halo_effect[/url].[/QUOTE]
I don't know what your point is, I said that I thought he should have.
But at the same time I have the mental capacity to also understand why he might have chosen to keep it less public (but not secret) without thinking he is actively trying to push "Ubisoft is best" on the world.
[QUOTE=LarparNar;46940133]I don't know what your point is, I said that I thought he should have.
But at the same time I have the mental capacity to also understand why he might have chosen to keep it less public (but not secret) without thinking he is actively trying to push "Ubisoft is best" on the world.[/QUOTE]
You said probably. That isn't the same as saying, 'Yes he should have'. Also spotlight is a bit of an exaggeration. Putting "oh yeah btw I was dating a PR person from Ubisoft at the time of writing this article and feel like I should disclose this in light of all the gamergate controversy going around about journalistic integrity.", is not a spotlight and people would probably have taken his review more honestly than anything.
This article has FUCK ALL to do with Ubisoft.
[QUOTE=redsoxrock;46940182]This article has FUCK ALL to do with Ubisoft.[/QUOTE]
He should have disclosed it on the other articles. This wouldn't be an issue if he had. It's chance that this came up for this article.
[QUOTE=Kybalt;46940142]You said probably. That isn't the same as saying, 'Yes he should have'.[/QUOTE]
Is that seriously the only thing that got you to write a fleshed out reply about bias and the Halo effect to my post?
But here have it extra clear just for you: [I]I think he should have disclosed it, but I can understand why he thought differently, and I don't think he was or is writing especially biased articles.[/I]
I don't understand why anyone would be against disclosing any possible COI
Nobody's saying he should break up with the woman or automatically biased for ever writing anything about Ubisoft, just that he should mention that he is with someone related to Ubisoft when writing about them.
If it's out there in the open we know he's not tying to hide any possible links to the company.
[QUOTE=SelfishDragon;46940254]I don't understand why anyone would be against disclosing any possible COI
Nobody's saying he should break up with the woman or automatically biased for ever writing anything about Ubisoft, just that he should mention that he is with someone related to Ubisoft when writing about them.
If it's out there in the open we know he's not tying to hide any possible links to the company.[/QUOTE]
Yea he definitely should have disclosed it, but I think the amount of flak he's getting for not doing so is completely over the top (and not even related in the case of this article).
[QUOTE=LarparNar;46940289]Yea he definitely should have disclosed it, but I think the amount of flak he's getting for not doing so is completely over the top (and not even related in the case of this article).[/QUOTE]
I think the flak should be more civil overall, but it's hard when people are fed up.
Correlation does not mean causation, but god damn the immaturity that exists in supposed adults now of days.
[QUOTE=LarparNar;46940289]Yea he definitely should have disclosed it, but I think the amount of flak he's getting for not doing so is completely over the top (and not even related in the case of this article).[/QUOTE]
i guess i feel like the amount of flak is in large part to PCG's response to it, which did a hell of a lot more to rouse suspicion than anything. it was a wonderful opportunity to show they want to respect normal journalistic ethical standards if they had put a disclaimer on his ubi articles written after they got together, as well as require such disclosures for the rest of their writers. but going delete mode just makes it look like a cover-up
[editline]15th January 2015[/editline]
there is also the people attacking his person, which i feel is completely uncalled for, but criticisms of PCG's policies and his decisions regarding disclosure are valid, i feel
[QUOTE=Ninja Gnome;46940519]i guess i feel like the amount of flak is in large part to PCG's response to it, which did a hell of a lot more to rouse suspicion than anything. it was a wonderful opportunity to show they want to respect normal journalistic ethical standards if they had put a disclaimer on his ubi articles written after they got together, as well as require such disclosures for the rest of their writers. but going delete mode just makes it look like a cover-up[/QUOTE]
I have no problem agreeing that going into delete mode was poor damage control.
Neogaf is now apparently issuing permanent bans for anyone who uses the term. Or so claims /v/.
This is going to be one of those things, isn't it?
But it's not a joke.
Hail Victory
I think it's relevant to the article because hes wants to talk shit about being moral when hes not being ethically responsible himself
Like just put a disclaimer for christs sake is it that difficult? We need to know if your promoting this product because you like it, or because you might have special interest. (Whether it be you worked on it, a friend worked on it or your wife works for the company!!!)
I don't know what's to argue here journalists have done it for DECADES, why does it suddenly change when it's about video-games? It's my hobby and I want to be informed about what I buy, how can I make informed choices if somebody is giving additional brownie points just because he had some kind of conflict of interest?
Not to mention, a majority of gaming journalists do this already - we don't have any solid evidence, but the majority of the time it's obvious. He should get a shit load of flak for this - just like any real journalist would if they were caught doing this sort of thing. Oh, and of course it's going to be a serious issue that people will jump on - were in the middle of one of gamings biggest controversies surrounding ethics - this type of thing is to be expected. Should we do anything more with him? No. Get mad at PC Gamer for not taking ethics seriously enough. We need more sites that we can look at and trust, no more of this crap - it's PC Gamers fault, a little bit of his as well, but mostly PC Gamers.
The article is atrocious and borderline click-bait blog anyways.
[editline]a[/editline]
If your gonna disagree with me or dumb me I would like to hear some constructive arguments, I can't improve if I don't know what your dumbing me for.
If you're not first, you're last.
[QUOTE=Grimhound;46941452]Neogaf is now apparently issuing permanent bans for anyone who uses the term. Or so claims /v/.
This is going to be one of those things, isn't it?[/QUOTE]
[URL]https://archive.today/dBXnT#selection-101.1-12.7[/URL]
Looks like it is.
I'm just gonna let the rest of this take course, go check out the corruption in videogame journalism thread if you want to discuss the ethical stuff, debate it and things.
[QUOTE=Swiket;46938119]Some people truly have nothing better to do.[/QUOTE]
i'm not the digger, im just the bard.
[editline]15th January 2015[/editline]
[QUOTE=Juniez;46938105]
what I'd really like to know is what part of the article tipped the pc master race to kick back hard and launch an investigation[/QUOTE]
it sounded really close to the "Gamers are dead" shit that happened a few months ago.
so thats what sparked it.
[QUOTE=spectator1;46932625] I don't think games will ever be better than Crysis in terms of graphics any time soon[/QUOTE]
Oh, lord of cringe, give me strength...
I wish people would see GamerGaters getting so passionate about ethics in journalism and would do something to stop Fox news, Daily Mail, or any of the other news sources that the western world has that's full of crap.
I just don't think the problem with games journalism or just journalism in general is that some nerds with a hashtag care too much, I think regular news outlets should feel ashamed that gamers expect higher ethical standards from a column in a video game magazine than anyone does from them.
pc gamer actually stands for politically correct gamer, it's a large misunderstanding that people think they cover computer games at any length
[QUOTE=Comrade_Eko;46943775]I wish people would see GamerGaters getting so passionate about ethics in journalism and would do something to stop Fox news, Daily Mail, or any of the other news sources that the western world has that's full of crap.
I just don't think the problem with games journalism or just journalism in general is that some nerds with a hashtag care too much, I think regular news outlets should feel ashamed that gamers expect higher ethical standards from a column in a video game magazine than anyone does from them.[/QUOTE]
The whole thing would have never gone past Doritogate levels of significance if it weren't for all the censorship, "gamers are dead" tantrum articles, and one sided narratives. I don't think most people care about what happens to video game journalism at this point so much as the insane levels of hypocrisy, misinformation, and cognitive dissonance that went into stopping them acknowledged.
But Video games suck now.
We're all losers.
But how can there be a PC master race if gamers have all been dead since September(ish)?
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.