The games journalist debate over covering the hack is a look in the mirror

  • Ashtear@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    11 months ago

    Sometimes, “investigative” journalism comes down to gossip, too, which is less relevant and I do not love. Schreier’s brand of “I have insider buddies and they tell me this stuff” coverage can stray into that. He walks the line, for sure. Some of it is genuinely interesting intrahistory, some of it doesn’t clear that bar for me.

    This is how the sausage is made, unfortunately. Schreier has to work with the same kind of currency any investigative journalist does, and sometimes that means publishing a piece as part of an agreement. I’ve seen this happen for decades in sports journalism, and in turn, that facilitates a lot of what labor has needed to survive in that industry. Considering professional sports is one of the very last bastions of collective bargaining in my country, I find it easy to overlook there.

    Schreier’s work has similarly been important for labor in making games, so yeah, while there’s garbage sometimes, I have zero problem with it.

    • MudMan@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      11 months ago

      Schreier has not published any of his gossipy pieces because he had a deal with anyone, at least that I know of. If what you mean is that he publishes the gossip because that’s the red meat what keeps him employed at Bloomberg so he can write more thorough coverage of the really interesting stuff… well, you have a worse opinion of Schreier than I do.

      Honestly, you guys are doing little to get me on board with that sort of thing. From the way you talk about it I’m getting the distinct impression that this sort of “investigative journalism”, which often boils down to “game development went poorly for reasons” is only feeding into the antagonistic relationship and not, as I’d hoped, creating more awareness of how the process goes so people can have more informed opinions.