I cant wait for the post were microsoft said that they have “done the job we needed to do in North America” ….I wonder how Michael and Shat agree on that comment.

Anyone who doesn’t view stories such as this, on websites such as this, with a certain degree of cynicism strikes me as being someone who is ignorant of the basics of the entire modern news media.

10 points to you sir

Seraphemz said:Damn.. what world are we in where Michael and Shatner have joined forces…

and 20 points for you sir

This is a fair though not unimpeachable point, and had you argued as such in your first few comments rather than resorting to generalisations I wouldn’t have flipped out to quite the above royally theatrical degree

I don’t think the absence of a question implies the absence of a questioner, but I concede that it does make Koller appear to be the active party at a glance, and the linked statements do indeed play up the article’s controversy potential. (I’d add that the delayed publication of the piece runs the risk of its being interpreted as a response to more recent events – increased publicity surrounding FFXIII, for instance). Even where there’s no real intention to deceive, these are occupational hazards on a short-piece-driven site which also conducts (presumably) lengthy interviews – concision for punchiness’s sake leads to misrepresentation. Which is why I think some kind of VG247 sub-section containing full transcripts of “native” interviews would be a good idea. It shouldn’t require much extra work – just a basic archive without images would do – and would probably boost traffic. News articles published before the arrival of the complete piece could include a sentence or two along the lines of “stay tuned for the full interview later in the week”.

He dreams about me you know. I’m there. In his mind. Oh yes.

What exactly do you expect? That Pat is going to “see the errors of his ways” if you prattle on about it enough?

The article reads as though someone, unprompted, is making a statement about the industry as a whole. It underlines this sentiment by linking to other statements (most likely prompted by different questions but, when there’s no context, you can mix and match and get away with it for the most part) from the same person selectively quoting a choice excerpt at the discretion of the author.

Yet, now we have been told it, the question asked is clearly directed about the company the individual represents.

Now, let’s say you’re an excitable fanboy of an opposing company’s products. You may read the article (or more than likely skim-read it) and see an unprompted attack on your favoured company’s direction by an exec of a competing company. Excitable fanboy that you are, rattles off a bit of internet angst and, before you know it, those fires are re-fuelled and the war burns on!

But if it is made clear that a statement was a response to a question then the whole ‘unprompted’ misinterpretation by some readers will be negated. Likewise, we may see less of people saying “I wish this guy would quit saying this again and again. Doesn’t he know when to shut up?”. As TimClark in #20 suggests, this sort of response could be the result of the way a statement is broadcast piecemeal than how it was actually said in the first place.

Of course, there is still a massive issue with readers that interpret a statement saying something positive about Brand X is the same as a statement saying something negative about Brand Y. I could say I like Pixar animations. But someone would read that as me saying “Dreamworks animations suck!” and react accordingly.

What *should* be happening is greater transparency to increase understanding. Not more ambiguity and manipulation of information. But that’s not going to sell a juicy headline is it?

However, in the ABSENCE of information it is impossible to know what the context is. I prefer working with information rather than scampering off, making up some guesswork, presenting it as fact and then swearing at someone who challenges it.

If those who expect us to treat them as a credible source of information deliberately orchestrate a situation where information is BOTH drip-fed AND has limited transparency then that credibility is compromised and there is no great injustice in saying so (as some eager drama queens should take note). This is even more pronounced when the reasons for such manipulation of information is for competitive gain – to serve the author, not the reader.

Every story has more than one side. If you don’t want to hear whatever those other sides are then you’re favouring convenient ignorance and apathy. Only AFTER you know the information can you determine its worth. What you’re trying to argue is that the information was worthless so there was no point to it. You are arguing the example, not the principle.

Also, just because a poor practice is common place doesn’t make it any better or any more acceptable. If you think it does then you should sit at the back of the bus.

Anyone who doesn’t view stories such as this, on websites such as this, with a certain degree of cynicism strikes me as being someone who is ignorant of the basics of the entire modern news media.

If that isn’t to your preference, perhaps there is another site that is? On the other hand, as long as we have you around to keep things in check, we have no reason to worry.

I asked you specifically if you needed more context, which you answered in the negative in #33..not #9. Try to keep up.

The problem, oh Archbishop of Games Journalism, is that you’re refusing to look at the particular (what was that word again?) “context” under discussion here. Here, let thy humble acolyte leap to thine assistance:

Q: “How important is exclusivity to Sony?”

A: “Exclusivity is something that doesn’t truly exist in this cycle,” the exec told VG247. “What does exist is first-party product. That’s your exclusive product.” etc

Now cover the first part with your hand, and tell us where the distortion occurs.

I’m not disagreeing with the broad thrust of your point, but I think your sanctimonious initial response was a bit unwarranted, basically. Nor am I totally convinced that you aren’t just looking for an excuse to wave your saintly willy around (but then this is the internet – who isn’t?)

The fact that the article doesn’t make it 100% clear when/where the interview was conducted is more of a problem, but that was never your original quibble, was it?

PS. For somebody so indignant at the media’s “warping” and “twisting” of fact, you seem to have few qualms about surreptitiously editing your own posts. Takes one to know one?

Stop asking questions that are already answered dear boy.

Also, whilst things my now appear clear AFTER the fact, without any initial transparency there is no way of knowing.

Given the frequency and fondness for journalism to warp details and twist context in order to sell copy at the expense of clarity and accuracy I’m not in the habit of blindly swallowing down a one-sided delivery of anything. Sorry that a request for balance and clarity irks you so!

What more context do you need?

You know, obvious questions really show who has been paying attention so far.

12

Yeah. That’d be a good idea!

The story is tagged GDC, but I guess it should be clear where and when he said what he said. Where, when, what, etc.

I wouldn’t want this approach to change. If I want context on something, I’ll look at another source and add it myself. At least Pat’s been honest about why he has the site set up that way, which is fair enough. There are plenty of other gaming “news” sites that don’t know what context actually means.

Gaming executives don’t just give interviews to every games media site that wants one, a lot of the time they do the interview because it’s to their benefit as well. If Mr Koller wasn’t already looking to gob off about how great their first party entourage is then he wouldn’t have said anything. If you go back in time though, they’ve been saying the same thing for a couple of years. I’d believe they might call it being “on message”.