3 ms·
I see it as being representative of the company as a whole. Regardless of the subject matter, if those ethical oversights are so frequent on one of their sites
by Zikes 11y ago
I see it as being representative of the company as a whole. Regardless of the subject matter, if those ethical oversights are so frequent on one of their sites it's not unreasonable to wonder where else it might be present. In that vein, I believe it to be relevant to the article.
- tptacek 11y agoFeels like potential conflicts of interest in video game reviews is a pretty minor journalistic sin compared to, for instance, disapproving stories about celebrity photo leaks that link to the stolen photos. Or obtaining a stolen unfilmed Tarantino movie script and promoting itself as the best place online to read it. Gawker is like a tabloid without the scruples. We don't need to read tea leaves to see that.
- Zikes 11y agoI agree. If there is to be a moral scale on which the two are placed, it would certainly tip towards the invasion of personal privacy. Video games are a $10+billion dollar industry, however, and Kotaku is a major publisher in that industry which may be directly funding many of Gawker's other "journalistic sins". I get the impression you are discounting Kotaku's actions or my bringing it up primarily because the subject is video games. If you have a poor opinion of that hobby, it may be affecting your judgment.
- tptacek 11y agoHip-hop music is a $10+billion dollar industry, but despite the fact that I'll listen to the occasional Outkast album, inside-baseball music industry drama also doesn't seem all that important to me either.
- Zikes 11y agoI have approximately the same level of interest in hip-hop, however if Gawker owned a hip-hop media site I wouldn't question its relevance to a discussion about Gawker.