I disagree. Let's look at the article in the OP from
Eurogamer.
[lots of stuff that I understand and appreciate, but don't change how I feel about the article for the reasons I bullet, below]
Honestly, I feel like hating on journalists in this case just isn't justified, man. [other stuff]
So should the media hold the reader's hand and start such articles with a bolded section that says "HEY MAN, THIS SHIT ISN'T CONFIRMED YET. THAT'S IN THE HEADLINE AND THE ARTICLE BUT WE'RE JUST MAKING SURE YOU GOT THE MESSAGE. UNCONFIRMED. K?" Or should we just read the article more carefully before we type in our thread title? I'm definitely going with the latter.
- They do a decent job with "allegedly" and "report", that's not my issue.
- My issue is that they then turn around and say stuff like "to strong arm" and "to intimidate"; diction never used in the Reddit post, meaning it's the article writer's own. that sort of color doesn't belong here. If the modder wanted to say it, the author could/should have quoted it, not add it in for drama. The author isn't even saying "the modder felt intimidated", he's saying "these people were sent explicitly to strong arm and intimidate", which is speculative.
- Pointing to other articles doing worse doesn't make this article better.
- I'm not hating on journalist
s, plural; in fact, I'm not even hating on this journalist. I'm hating on this piece, in isolation, hence "in this article". I can't say I've ever read anything else by this writer, and I'm not going to seek it out. I thought the scope of my comment was pretty clear.
- Regardless of how standard/accepted it is to simultaneously post and ask the other party for comment, I find this practice irresponsible. It's intrinsically biased and leads to situations where the first version people read is only one party's. If the second party does respond, and outlet then goes back and edits the post to say "Update: T2 says 'nuh-uh, the PIs were there to deliver chocolates becuz we luv modderz.", MOST people won't read that. I really don't care if they get "scooped" by outlets with looser practices.
- I think part of my problem with the article is that "journalism" in games (and I'm sure other media) has largely devolved to "some guy on Reddit said something", rather than doing reporting.
EDIT: - A read through this thread and the other thread is proof that it's already accepted as 100% fact by some people. It's unfortunate, but that's how it is.
EDIT: I want to make it abundantly clear that if this did go down the way the Reddit poster said it did, that's pretty shitty. I don't condone the practice, I'm just criticizing the one article I'm commenting on.
EDIT 2:
Then explain to me exactly what the relevant difference between the two is. I don't have to talk to Tim Cook, but I do have to talk to these two modders. Why?
I THINK what benicillin may have been suggest was:
- that a PR from a publicly traded company, especially one the size of apple, is crafted the way it is because it's specifically for the purpose of being reported on. it's a PRESS release.
- it would probably have been a good idea to talk to the Reddit poster to get a better sense of how he felt about it. Ask questions like "did you think they were here to intimidate you?" BEFORE offering that in your article based on your interpretation of a Reddit post.
- it's important to get comment, or allow a reasonable window for the second party to comment to avoid even the appearance of bias in the article.
A better example of this is an article titled "Tim Cook sends private investigators to spy on minority employees - report" based on a Reddit post. I think it's irresponsible to put something like that out into the ether without making a real effort to talk to both parties.
EDIT 3: This is probably getting off topic. I'll stop commenting on the journalism aspect.