EXTRA CREDITS demands that E3 not becovered by video game websites, should Escapist follow?

[Link_to_Future]

lol it always continues being entertaining how people here love to jump to hating things. what are we, pretentious hipsters now?

Pfft...

I was a pretentious hipster before all these sheep started thinking it was cool. Now I have been driven to treating everything with a complete level of sincerity. You know, to stay ahead of the crowd. >.>

I appreciate what Extra Credits is trying to do, but it isn't going to change much. By the time it comes to a head, the vote will have already been decided for better or for worse. They might be able to get a few people to join their cause but I'm mostly seeing them standing before a futile struggle.

It's the thought that counts though. Not going to hold that against them. XP

 

[Geo Da Sponge]

The more I think about this plan, the less ethical it seems.

Think about it; if a site such as The Escapist purposefully refused to cover E3 until the ESA changes it's position on SOPA they would be using their power as journalists as leverage against a group that they have no affiliation with. This seems pretty seedy to me, 'think what we tell you to or we'll organise ourselves against you'. If you do this you are pissing away what little journalistic credibility you have.

And this is coming from someone who hates E3 and obviously hates SOPA.

 

[OldNewNewOld]

Really Escapists? That's your answer? "I think they're right, but I don't give a damn about anything and I can't sacrifice just a tiny bit of pleasure now for a better future" is your answer?

What hypocritical bunch of assholes. All the talk about being more active, fighting against piracy, fighting against SOPA, PIPA... and when someone presents you a PERFECT solution for the average Joe who can't directly affect this matter, you say "too much work"? Contact your congressman? Well guess what, contacting a congressman is only possible if you live in the USA, while your pathetic shit will affect others. This is a solution for everybody who wants to help, not just citizen of the USA.

But noooooo... you have your head to much in your own asses to think even a bit and do something... You are everything that is wrong in the majorities opinion about gamer.

@Geo Da Sponge
Protesting against a company, no matter what it did is also unethically. People who are working there, people who never did anything wrong will lose their jobs if you protest/boycott is successful. Jet people are boycotting.

Since we don't have any real power, this is a way how we can make our opinion vocal. Also, it does influence us/them. We are their targeted audience, they make money on us. If they want our money, they should behave like that. How can I show them that they aren't behaving well? Just close your wallet. Journalists boycotting them would be journalists listening their targeted audience (which is again us). If they don't listen, we close the wallets for them. So even if they cover E3, they will lose more than they gain. Next time they will listen.

E3 is a product being sold, we are the consumer. Ever heard about consumer rights?

But it obviously doesn't work that way in the gaming industry because looking at the escapists, gamer are a bunch of spineless idiots who would rather have a tiny it of pleasure now than sacrifice it to save the current level of pleasure for many more years to come.


EDIT: at everyone who says "om mah gawd, we can't convince everyone, we better stop nao and lose without tryin'"
Guess what, it never was about convincing everyone. But if the Escapist agreed to this, it would have an impact on other news sites. If the user of their sites where asking to boycott E3, but the since decided not to, they would maybe change their opinion because of the Escapist.

The point of a boycott is making a point. Even if there are some people still covering it, Sony won't be there if the big names aren't there. Not only Sony, but the other names also. They come to E3 because is BIG. But what if a big number of sites covering it where to boycott? It wouldn't be as big as it is which would impact those coming.

If enough fans write to MS/Sony/Nintendo that they will boycott them if the still appear on E3 (and they know about GoDaddy) and the coverage is lower because of the same reason, there is a big chance that they won't take part in that circus show.

 

[Link_to_Future]

This is essentially extortion, 'think what we tell you to or we'll organise ourselves against you'. If you do this you are pissing away what little journalistic credibility you have.

Uhhh...?

1. Extra Credits is not really neutral journalism so much as it is an opinion piece. That take an issue that they feel is worth discussing and then they discuss it and how they feel that issue should be handled in the future. As such, they have strong feelings about certain issues and it is within their rights to voice those opinions. Journalistic credibility is not really coming into the equation since it is an opinion piece instead of true reporting. The stance they have taken and the actions that they are encouraging are not any sort of betrayal to the concept that the show set out to portray.

2. Extortion? Deciding to boycott an event because you don't agree with the principles of the people sponsoring it is extortion? Inviting other people who might also agree with your stance to take similar action is extortion?

Extra Credits is not in some sort of position of power. They are not making a move to make it impossible for other groups to attend E3. They are only encouraging others to take their stance with them. That's totally different from extortion.

I see what your saying, I just don't agree with the way you are saying it. If we followed your definition of extortion, then every boycott ever organized based on principle would also be unethical. After all, we have the power of the dollar. What right do we have to use our power as consumers to leverage against a group that we have no affiliation with?

I know that there are differences between those situations, but can you at least see how they are related?

In summary: Extra Credits is not engaging in extortion or sacrificing their journalistic integrity in this move. They are simply throwing their weight behind a cause that they believe in.

 

[Akimoto]

E3 is too big to care. I'm not dissing Extra Credits, but I find it hard to get all of the reviewers to not cover E3. Without the critical mass, E3 will shrug it's shoulders at the angry few and carry on.

 

[Geo Da Sponge]

This is essentially extortion, 'think what we tell you to or we'll organise ourselves against you'. If you do this you are pissing away what little journalistic credibility you have.

Uhhh...?

1. Extra Credits is not really neutral journalism so much as it is an opinion piece. That take an issue that they feel is worth discussing and then they discuss it and how they feel that issue should be handled in the future. As such, they have strong feelings about certain issues and it is within their rights to voice those opinions. Journalistic credibility is not really coming into the equation since it is an opinion piece instead of true reporting. The stance they have taken and the actions that they are encouraging are not any sort of betrayal to the concept that the show set out to portray.

2. Extortion? Deciding to boycott an event because you don't agree with the principles of the people sponsoring it is extortion? Inviting other people who might also agree with your stance to take similar action is extortion?

Extra Credits is not in some sort of position of power. They are not making a move to make it impossible for other groups to attend E3. They are only encouraging others to take their stance with them. That's totally different from extortion.

I see what your saying, I just don't agree with the way you are saying it. If we followed your definition of extortion, then every boycott ever organized based on principle would also be unethical. After all, we have the power of the dollar. What right do we have to use our power as consumers to leverage against a group that we have no affiliation with?

I know that there are differences between those situations, but can you at least see how they are related?

In summary: Extra Credits is not engaging in extortion or sacrificing their journalistic integrity in this move. They are simply throwing their weight behind a cause that they believe in.

Oh, I don't mean Extra Credits is sacrificing journalistic credibility, since they're not journalists. I should've worded that better. I meant that if a gaming journalism website such as The Escapist were to go along with it I would question their integrity. So, sorry about that and I will edit, but when I'm talking about games journalism here I'm thinking of The Escapist as my default example.

Anyway, the difference between this 'boycott' and other ones is that if they fail to report on E3 they are essentially failing to do their job as expected by the readers. They (The Escapist, or any other news source) would be choosing to specifically manipulate their coverage of events to further their political goals. Now, if they didn't want to go to E3 because they don't agree with the ESA then they can get their news second hand and generally keep the event itself at arm's length to try and minimise the money the ESA gets from it. But yes, I think that purposefully failing to do your job until a group that owes you nothing says what you want them to say is a pretty dirty tactic.

I mean, we as individuals can choose to boycott E3 if we want, but that's because we don't have a duty or reason to pay attention other than for our own interests. News sources do.

 

[Link_to_Future]

Really Escapists? That's your answer? "I think they're right, but I don't give a damn about anything and I can't sacrifice just a tiny bit of pleasure now for a better future" is your answer?

What hypocritical bunch of assholes. All the talk about being more active, fighting against piracy, fighting against SOPA, PIPA... and when someone presents you a PERFECT solution for the average Joe who can't directly affect this matter, you say "too much work"? Contact your congressman? Well guess what, contacting a congressman is only possible if you live in the USA, while your pathetic shit will affect others. This is a solution for everybody who wants to help, not just citizen of the USA.

But noooooo... you have your head to much in your own asses to think even a bit and do something... You are everything that is wrong in the majorities opinion about gamer.

First off...name calling? Not really setting yourself up for any sort of intellectual debate or giving off any indication that you want to even have a civil discussion. Might want to rethink that tactic unless you're asking for people to jump down your throat.

Secondly, who said it was too much work? You're putting words in the mouths of your opponents. The general consensus seemed to be that the movement was likely to fail on logistics alone. When money is involved, people are generally going to try and protect that profit. Now, I don't actually know how much money and exposure E3 is likely to bring, but if it's as much as was implied then telling people to sacrifice that on principle alone is going to be a hard sell.

Third, how is this the perfect solution for the average joe? Should I decide not to go to E3 now because of their movement? Ok, I wasn't going anyway. I have a life that prevents me from taking a week off to go to gaming conventions. Should I ask an organization not go? Well, that might work but what is to guarantee that I'm going to be able to change anything about their strategy? In other words, I might be able to influence them slightly but a slight influence does not translate into some ubiquitous "perfect solution."

I can see that you're frustrated. And you know what, that's fine. Go and ask your favorite game companies to pull from E3. Ask your favorite journalists not to cover it. You might even be able to get some to do it. If you can, more power to you.

But to issue an attack like you did isn't going to get people to your side, especially when the solution isn't as foolproof as you seem to think. The only thing that comes from attacking others is moderation and pushing people further away from your goal.

Damn I need to stop staying up so late. I spend all my time engaging in fairly pointless arguments over the internet when I'm tired. >.<

 

[Geo Da Sponge]

*Snip*

Sorry, didn't see your post there. As I said in my response to Link To The Future, yes, we as individuals have the right to ignore/boycott E3 as we wish, and ignore/boycott news sources we don't like as well. But until it's demonstrated that that the viewers definitively aren't interested in E3, game journalists failing to report on it are failing to do their job.

Well, like I said they can keep their distance. For example, if The Escapist was to post nothing but a very short, bare summary of E3 that consisted only of a bullet point list of what game trailers there were and their release dates, that would be fine.

 

[ryo02]

what basically amounts the the whole of the next console generation being announced at e3 (supposedly) might make that tricky @_@.

theres gotta be a way to cover that outside of e3 right?.

 

[Link_to_Future]

Oh, I don't mean Extra Credits is sacrificing journalistic credibility, since they're not journalists. I should've worded that better. I meant that if a gaming journalism website such as The Escapist were to go along with it I would question their integrity. So, sorry about that and I will edit, but when I'm talking about games journalism here I'm thinking of The Escapist as my default example.

Anyway, the difference between this 'boycott' and other ones is that if they fail to report on E3 they are essentially failing to do their job as expected by the readers. They (The Escapist, or any other news source) would be choosing to specifically manipulate their coverage of events to further their political goals. Now, if they didn't want to go to E3 because they don't agree with the ESA then they can get their news second hand and generally keep the event itself at arm's length to try and minimise the money the ESA gets from it. But yes, I think that purposefully failing to do your job until a group that owes you nothing says what you want them to say is a pretty dirty tactic.

I mean, we as individuals can choose to boycott E3 if we want, but that's because we don't have a duty or reason to pay attention other than for our own interests. News sources do.

Ah, being on the same page really helps, doesn't it? Now I can fully get behind what you were saying. It is a duty of an news organization to report the news in an unbiased manner. Failing to do so would be a violation of neutrality and integrity. But to be honest, even if a couple of news sites pulled back, I think the damage that E3 would suffer would be negligible. It would require a significant pulling of coverage for the losses to be notable and I don't see that as being particularly likely.

A dirty tactic? Yes. One likely to happen to the extent envisioned? I'm thinking not.

So yeah, sorry about ranting like I did. Misunderstandings are fun! ^_^

 

[Helmholtz Watson]

The more I think about this plan, the less ethical it seems.

Think about it; if a site such as The Escapist purposefully refused to cover E3 until the ESA changes it's position on SOPA they would be using their power as journalists as leverage against a group that they have no affiliation with. This seems pretty seedy to me, 'think what we tell you to or we'll organise ourselves against you'. If you do this you are pissing away what little journalistic credibility you have.

And this is coming from someone who hates E3 and obviously hates SOPA.

Did you not read my post? I stated that the ESA makes money from E3.

 

[Weaver]

I strongly agree with the movement, but does anyone else think James Portnow is the most pretentious person in the industry?

 

[Fiz_The_Toaster]

I'm all about fight SOPA and PIPA and all that, but this is just silly.

They're asking people/businesses whose job is to cover and report on gaming news at the biggest convention to not do their job?

I totally understand that the ESA making boat loads of money off this, but this would come off as temper tantrum while it would be much more productive to just talk to Congressman/women about this. Sometimes, I wonder about EC.

 

[Canadamus Prime]

I support this notion. Down with E3, down with the ESA, Down with Orwellian legislation!

 

[MercurySteam]

Wow, interesting to see such mixed reactions after I was raged at by a good number of people over on another thread [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/9.338609-E3-supports-SOPA#13700499].

Here's hoping that the ESA drops support before E3 or that SOPA and PIPA just don't exist by then.

 

[SageRuffin]

I strongly agree with the movement, but does anyone else think James Portnow is the most pretentious person in the industry?

James was at Magfest this year, and while he indeed knows his stuff, he has a very arrogant air about him.

 

[Geo Da Sponge]

The more I think about this plan, the less ethical it seems.

Think about it; if a site such as The Escapist purposefully refused to cover E3 until the ESA changes it's position on SOPA they would be using their power as journalists as leverage against a group that they have no affiliation with. This seems pretty seedy to me, 'think what we tell you to or we'll organise ourselves against you'. If you do this you are pissing away what little journalistic credibility you have.

And this is coming from someone who hates E3 and obviously hates SOPA.

Did you not read my post? I stated that the ESA makes money from E3.

Yes, I know that from watching the original video... What's your point? You can't call yourself, in the case of The Escapist, "the internet's home for high-quality journalism and insightful commentary on the wide and wonderful world of videogames and gamer culture" when you just pick and choose what news you want to report. If they (news sites like The Escapist) fail to report on big events like E3 then they are failing to do their job. By all means, don't buy into the extravagent rubbish that surrounds E3 if you dislike the people running it, keep it minimal, report on the essentials and nothing more, but don't cut off your reports entirely unless you're absolutely certain that almost your entire readership is okay with it and understands why you're doing it.

And indeed, it is a massive abuse of journalistic integrity to do so. To use your position as journalists to further political goals through how you selectively report the news. Yes I know the ESA are 'teh bad guys' but that doesn't make it okay. Being really, really certain that you're right doesn't make it okay to fiddle with your news feed like this.

I mean, that's the kind of shit every one gets pissed at Fox News for after all.

.

PS.
On the other hand, if this boycott is effective we might see a few less of those really annoying "Fuck yeah I'm at E3, check out how awesome it is and how hot those booth babes are, watch from your hovel peasants and weep for I am LIVING THE DREAM!" videos on Youtube.

 

[tippy2k2]

No, a hundred No, a thousand No.

This is a game journalist site and you are asking them to skip the biggest event for gaming because you disagree with something someone thinks?

Here's what I'm hoping to be a nice example:

Say CNN believes that the war in Iraq is bad and they disagree with America going to war. Because they disagree with us going to war, they obviously shouldn't cover anything that happens in the war.

If CNN did this, they would lose all their credibility as a journalistic site. I feel it's the same exact thing here. The Escapist is are journalists. You don't pick and choose what to cover because someone involved in what you are covering disagrees with your opinion.

 

[Sylveria]

'think what we tell you to or we'll organise ourselves against you'.
.

... That's what protesting is. A group of people sees something they find unjust, thus they organize in an attempt to stop it. Man, you woulda been a great southern white guy back in the 40s-60s, stopping all those darn coloreds organizing to change the minds of a country that didn't view them equally. And lets not forget all those blasted womens organizing to get the right to vote.

Gotta give you points, you basically just said you're against every civil rights movement ever made since you're against organized protest. When can we crown you the Grand Dragon of the KKK?