What About Integrity?
"Treat others as you would want to be treated by them" is a moral that I learned as a child. Although philosophers call this moral the ethic of reciprocity, most people are probably more aware of the name The Golden Rule. Variations have appeared throughout history from the words of Confucius to the doctrines and traditions of every major religion. With so much coverage, I am always taken aback when someone or some organization fails to practice this ethic.
David Edery recently called my attention to a short-lived public relations debacle involving Sony Computer Entertainment America (SCEA) and Kotaku, a popular rumor mill for interactive entertainment. The trouble brewed like so:
- Kotaku discovered a rumor concerning new Sony technology.
- Kotaku, after deciding to publish the story, sought information from SCEA.
- SCEA requested that Kotaku refrain from publishing the story.
- Kotaku questioned this request.
- SCEA informed Kotaku that their access rights would be revoked.
- Kotaku published the story and sent a copy to SCEA.
- SCEA revoked the access rights previously granted to Kotaku and demanded the return of SCEA property lended to Kotaku.
David describes this incident as "public relations lunacy" and "one of the most foolish public relations moves in the history of the video game industry." [I think the latter description is exaggerated.]
I disagree with the claim that the actions of SCEA were foolish. SCEA acted rationally, reasonably, and sensibly in the face of yellow journalism. Kotaku had already decided to publish the story prior to contacting SCEA. Kotaku did not provide SCEA a legitimate opportunity to control the story. Kotaku was going to publish the story with or without additional information, clarification, confirmation, or consent from SCEA.
Given that Kotaku denied the nondisclosure request, this incident indicates that Kotaku considers content more important than healthy relationships with their content partners. I argue that the credibility and reputation of Kotaku can and should be questioned. I would advise that people be wary of the information they provide to Kotaku as this incident suggests that the editors of Kotaku cannot be expected to stay mum about information mistakenly shared. Since Kotaku editor Brian Crecente described himself and the editors of Kotaku as journalists, not bloggers, I believe that Kotaku should be held accountable for their behavior as journalists.
Instead of civil respect for the Golden Rule, what can be observed are Kotaku readers praising the editors of Kotaku for "sticking it to the Man." Kotaku let that image be created in the minds of their audience. In effect, their failing to satisfy standards of journalistic integrity is a direct contribution to the sphere of social problems that businesses in this industry face.
I would agree that SCEA made a mistake though. If SCEA were serious about their nondisclosure request, SCEA could have offered an alternative solution after receiving a lukewarm response to their request. SCEA could have offered other information for another story in exchange for delaying the publishing of potentially valid information about their new technology. There are always ways to maintain mutually beneficial relationships with respectable journalists. Those ways simply need to be found.
I’m surprised you make a distinction between bloggers and journalists in regard to ethics. Why? The same ethics apply equally to all professions and non-professional roles. Blogging may be more casual than traditional journalism, but the degree of formality should not affect moral expectations.
If a writer for the New York Times revealed nondisclosed information, as did blogger Joe with an audience of three people, the consequences of the two reports would be significantly different. That difference might make one case more severe, but they are both guilty of an unethical decision and deserving of sanctioning.
Initially, I didn’t intend to distinguish the ethics of bloggers from the ethics of journalists. I simply meant to emphasize that if someone claims to be a journalist that they should be held accountable as that which they claimed to be. After discussing this issue with two game academics at the IGDA Members-Only Party at GDC 2007, I think I have an answer for you.
According to Technorati, there over 44 million blogs indexed and tracked by Technorati alone. Billy, Bobby, Tommy, and Jenny are bloggers. They are not journalists. They would not identify as journalists. To most people, journalists are trained writers who are employed to write for a periodical, and because they write for a periodical, they are accountable for the content they provide to consumers. Journalists are content distributors in the business of information. Inaccurate, false, and noncredible information can cause irreparable reputational damage to the publisher. Inaccurate, false, and noncredible information can mislead consumers of the periodical. Inaccurate, false, and noncredible information can wreak havoc on the global economy all the way down to the personal lives of individuals.
On the other hand, the “blogosphere” represents a minute segment of information consumption. The readership of blogs is extremely tiny in comparison to the readership and viewership of New York Times and CNN. Indeed, most blogs aggregate and interpret content produced by traditional media. In such cases, the readership of these blogs is a mere extension of traditional media audiences. Original blogs, or blogs with original content, can be influential if we consider how little things make big differences. But how many original blogs have significant audiences? How many people can you find outside your social circle that can say they read blogs on a regular basis? Most likely, not many. Conversely, how many people can you find outside your social circle that can say they attend to news broadcasts or follow a newspaper?
For journalists, expectations of ethical conduct are moral prescriptions — or ethical requirements. They are standards of journalistic integrity. To violate these standards is an act of willful destruction. Google: Stephen Glass. For bloggers, expectations are only expectations. We cannot require bloggers to adhere to standards of journalistic integrity through any form of regulation because they have no purse strings to cut. The distinction between bloggers and journalists in regard to ethics is a matter of responsibility. Journalists are responsible to their employers and audiences. Bloggers are only responsible to themselves.
With the caveat that I was out of town when this all hit so I did not follow it closely, I think applying the label of yellow journalism to the incident is pretty extreme. I think Brian is actually one of the most incisive folk currently working in game journalism. He is quite up front about his information being gossip, and in this case, he was under no impetus to protect SCEA and I don’t believe he should have been. It was SCEA’s action to place duress on a journalist that, if anything, lacked integrity — they responded with a threat instead of any of a myriad of possible persuasive or reasonable alternatives, and this of late has been fairly typical Sony behavior. Had Brian decided to back down simply because SCEA threatened him, that, I believe, would have lacked journalistic integrity — the fact that SCEA was going to respond so forcefully should itself indicate what his response would and should be. When a company’s threats can result in the suppression of information, that is when we should be concerned about journalism, and is a concern in many other branches both within and outside of game coverage.
Erin, I’m definitely not defending how SCEA responded. I have been critical about their response, but what most concerns me is that Brian played the journalism card after deliberately framing the situation to demonize SCEA and victimize Kotaku. When disguised as journalism, that action is unethical and, I would argue, unprofessional. Considering that SCEA provided Kotaku with technology and comprehensive access, that action is also an irresponsible treatment of a content partner.
I believe someone should have stepped back from table and re-examined the situation. That would have demonstrated reserve and civility. Conflicts cannot be resolved by meeting aggression with aggression. There is no sense in butting heads to demonstrate prowess in arrogance.
SCEA first nicely requested Kotaku to not publish the information on PlayStation Home. Kotaku denied this request. SCEA then issued a demand. Kotaku published the information as Brian said they were committed to doing prior to contacting SCEA, and then taunted SCEA by telling them what they did. Kotaku never stepped back and tried to reason with SCEA. They just went ahead with the attitude that they can do whatever they want without regard for their content partners.
Perhaps Kotaku was right that they can do whatever they want as long as they manipulate public perception of their problems through spin. I might be fighting an uphill battle for accountability in interactive entertainment journalism. But you know what? At least I’m fighting.