Disclosure of Kickstarter and Patreon backings.

I think what the journalist is supporting matters.

It's OK for a game journalist to put money down for a kickstarter for a video game. It's no different than pre-ordering or buying a game, which is an integral part of covering games! (Although obviously there's a difference between using kickstarter to pre-order the game, and using kickstarter to donate 5k so you can go meet the creators. The latter shouldn't prevent reporting on the project, but it should be disclosed.)

It's a little more questionable when a game journalist decides to support someone who sees themselves as an "activist" in the game realm. Reporting on said activist raises even more questions.

Now, I'm sure that Ben Kuchera would support Zoe Quinn's political goals, whether or not he supported her on Patreon. But when another feminist group shows up, and you don't report on them because Zoe Quinn doesn't like them, and you are simultaneously supporting Zoe Quinn (the person, not the cause) -- that raises all sorts of red flags to me.

It's a little different then that. Patronage or kickstarter is more like funding the movie getting made, not purchasing the ticket. The ticket is a result of the movie already existing.

Would you trust a movie journalist who funded a movie to give an honest opinion about it? Would that journalist give honest opinions of competing movies? Say this funded movie was releasing at sundance along with a very similar movie, would they give equal press to each film? Negative press to one and positive to the other?

Backing a game is similar. You want it to succeed and you'll use your power to make it happen, you may even ignore better games coming out at the same time because you've already thrown your hat in with one. A good journalist would never do that, but a good journalist would also always disclose their connections. If they don't do one how can you trust them to do the other?

@n1nj4d00m: I mean, since it is a personal opinion the reader don't really need to know, I think. The reader can make its own mind himself ont he value of the text, regardless he knows the personal life of the writer or not.

Let's say Kuchera write an opinion piece that is positive on Vlambeer. The question a reader should ask is "Does Vlambeer is worthy of that praise?" and not "Does Kuchera is a friend of Raimi and thus is biased toward Vlambeer?". He likes them enough to paint them in a positive light so of course he is biased toward them. Readers should be smart enough to know that.

If you have a problem with a game, criticize the game. If you a have a problem with a text, criticize the text. The personal ties are not as important as people make them to be. It is important to note that funding a Patreon does not mean you'll make money out of the game, so Kuchera gains nothing positive by painting Quinn in a positive light.

I mean, lot of shit happened to Quinn lately and I won't get into that. Lot of people thinking she got press for bad reasons but, at the end of the day the question is "Does Depression Quest is worthy of that press?" We could agree or not, I do think it is. If you don't think so, you should explain why a product does not deserve that press, not how do you think it got it.

I say that as a movie critics. I always wrote positive reviews for Alain Resnais' films as I was a fan of his. Never met the guy but I was totally biased for him. Critics are human. I feel like too many people have a weirdly inhuman view of journalists.

I won't say you're entirely off base here however this particular incident (Kuchera's "story" on Zoe) wasn't a review or endorsement. It was basically like, "Here is this thing that's happening and here are some quotes from the person it's happening to." I don't see a conflict of interest there for just noting something happened. You could argue that maybe he wouldn't have reported on something like that if he didn't like Zoe's work, but he didn't review her game or endorse her work. Reviewing a product/game where you are presumably convincing people to buy or not buy something would be a different story (and maybe more relevant to the Patricia Hernandez story though I'm less familiar with that one.)

I think that's a pretty different situation than backing a Kickstarter. In that hypothetical scenario, you're essentially talking about the person being a producer on the film with probably a significant financial investment and the potential for monetary returns on that investment based on the film's performance. That's a drastically different situation from putting around $5-25 into a crowdfunded project where all you're really doing is pre-paying for the end product - you have no input in the production and nothing to gain from misrepresenting the final product.

As I said before, there's no harm in disclosing your crowdfunding information, but I just don't see it as truly being an ethical dilemma.

What if they were one of the higher level kickstarters? Some of those can be thousands of dollars. The point is, just disclose the information and you can avoid all of this.

No, I am not talking about the person becoming a producer or gaining anything from the success of the film. We don't know their motivation for just giving a lot of money to the film, could be a good friend, could be a cheap indie movie that didn't need a lot of money. That is not the point, the point is at the point of funding something that doesn't exists into existence, are you able to impartially provide honest coverage of it and anything relating to it in the future?

You may think "oh $25 isn't a big deal and wouldn't affect coverage", but how do you know? Maybe it wouldn't affect you, but could it affect others? If they are able to ethically donate that small amount in secret what stops them from donating even more?

The point is there needs to be a line and it should be right at the start. Ask yourself, why not disclose all connections? What is there to hide? It just gives honest intelligent consumers more information to base their own opinions on. The inverse, hiding information? Can be used maliciously. So, why not just always disclose?

@n1nj4d00m: Sure, there's no harm in disclosing it, but the size of the investment wasn't even really the most significant issue in that hypothetical I laid out. The bigger problems would be getting credited on the film, exercising input in the development, and most of all, standing to profit from the project.

People need to stop thinking kickstarter is an investment. Your not buying stocks in it and it shouldn't be treated that way.

Also pretty sure Jeff says he doesn't contribute to most kickstarters just so this doesn't come up.

Overall I think it's silly to think someone can't be impartial because they preordered a game from kickstarter. No logic there.

I think it's not that there's "no harm in disclosing it". It's that there can be significant harm in NOT disclosing it, as we are seeing right now. Its not supposed to be an optional thing that journalists do. I agree though, that standing to profit can be an even bigger issue.

@koolaid said:

Anything a newsman does that could potentially cause a conflict of interest should be disclosedwhereapplicable. If you're a local reporter who is reporting on Pizza Hut creating a new fuel system that will allow pizza delivery to be five minutes faster, you don't need to mention that you prefer Domino's. However, if you are reporting on Domino's selling new cinnamon twisty sticks that taste way better than competing brands, you should probably mention that your brother owns the local Domino's franchise. Disclosure is important to maintaining trust between the readership and the reporter/publishing outlet.

That's all any of this is. These rules don't exist to be an asshole or prevent people from doing their jobs, they exist so that we, as in the general public, can trust the source of our news. Whether it's video games, local community, anything really. It's not inconsequential that journalists are funding kickstarters, and it's not inconsequential that certain journalists are funding certain developer's Patreons. This behaviour in and of itself isn't the issue, the issue is that when complications arise and the journalist has to report on the developer, or the kickstarter in question.

I think a major thing to consider is that this has been building for a long time. There have always been rumours of backroom deals, and there has been the occasional kerfuffle that spills over into the public. Couple that with the current mindset of journalists (circling the wagons), and the confrontational "us versus them" mentality that permeates so damn many game journalist twitter feeds, and it's like the press has turned on the public they're meant to serve. That may not seem like a big deal to you, and hell, maybe it really isn't, but the point is that the enthusiast press that is meant to report on industry news has stopped doing so and are instead using their positions of authority to push personal agendas, propel friends careers, and manipulate public opinion. That's not what a journalist does. That's what a marketing or public relations associate does. We need to either reclassify games journalism as a branch of marketing and PR, or this current behaviour needs to be rectified. This weird grey area that games journalism (and conveniently only games journalism) exists in is not sustainable.

It's worth noting that I'm not accusing everyone of being in on it, mind. I'm not saying everyone is participating in this. What I am saying is that the public trust has been broken, and that the last week and a half worth of crap and scandal is now seen as the straw that broke the camel's back.

My hypothetical situation did not include any of that. You added that for your own straw man argument.

My example puts a movie journalist doing exactly the same stuff video game journalists do. Some people are to passionate about video games to see past certain things so putting it in another context generally always hits home.

Your reaction is a perfect example. As soon as we changed the context to film you assumed they would become producers and gain monetarily from it. Why does that notion exist in film but not video games?

People could have all sorts of motivation to give money to someone else. We need that information to be able to determine if what they have to say is trustworthy or not. That movie reviewer could give the money for no other reason then to get the "exclusive" first look and coverage. They could have done it to get news stories to drive hits. They could have done it because it's a friends studio and they want to see them succeed and they have a ton of money to spare. We as consumers and readers need to know these connections so we can work out the details ourselves. Most every other industry is open and transparent about this.

It is a little disconcerting that there has not been a single article on this topic on a major gaming site that explores the potential conflicts of interest surrounding this story. I only found out about this story through youtube, and I frequent sites like kotaku and here all the time. I mean, even Adam Sessler is posting links to patreon accounts for a dev. It seems really fishy.

So the couple people here who think there is a conflict of interest because of the kickstarter are basically still ignoring the fact there is no monetary gain when you back something.

Also missed @jeff s post the first time but that's basically my stance.

Jeff's stance seems to be for disclosing these types of associations, which I fully agree with.

So the couple of people here who think there can't be other motivations and negative outcomes because of a kickstarter are basically still ignoring the fact there are other possible gains and problems caused by backing something.

@oldirtybearon: I think we are going to have to agree to disagree here. You say you think trust has been broken. I think trust has been strengthened. Or if not trust, then respect. It seems that we are coming at this from different places and we aren't going to get anywhere and also stay on topic.

@coverlesstech: not sure what. Why would you giving someone ten bucks to a kickstarter make you want to feel the need to give it a good review or good press when it's released. You don't get more money or copies of they sell more. There is no logic.

I'm fine with someone saying they contributed to the kickstarter In a review but I can't say it would effect how much I think of the review.

Also like anything I wouldn't take a view from only one person as gospel anyway. Everyone is bias in their own views somewhat. That why you do your research and base it on personal taste then make your choice.

Why is a reporter subscribing to a service "a very real ethics violation"? Because you say and believe so? That is not a reason or compelling. In a concise argument, explain why you believe it is an ethics violation. Believing a journalist must divorce themselves completely from the subject is a poor way to live let alone record experiences which is the point of journalism. In particular, paying for something doesn't automatically mean you like it let alone tell everyone you love it and they should as well.

Funding GiantBomb with a subscription is not an ethics violation. Funding Giantbomb with a subscription and then telling your friends "I really like Giantbomb's Unprofessional Friday's" is not an ethics violation either. You could be a reporter or some unemployed underwater basket weaver and neither is an ethics violation. You have a vested interest in the continuing existence if not success of Giantbomb.com. Some of you have subscriptions and gain something of value daily in multiple forms of content including the premium content. But for some reason you can't speak your mind on it because you paid for it?

I keep repeating this that people are confusing patronage with pay offs. I'm going to add to this the old issue that people think that people abuse impartiality when they really mean "I don't like what they said". Ben Kuchera doesn't need to be impartial to Zoe Quinn to comment on what is happening to Zoe Quinn any more than I or anyone else needs to be impartial to comment on Zoe Quinn to make the same or similar comments as well.

There are real ethics issues in gaming journalism. The fact that Giantbomb.com needs to serve up ads for games it may review is a problem. The way access is handled by producers is also an issue that I wish more people would pay attention too. Kuchera giving money to Quinn so she can make more games that he may or may not comment on is not a problem although the obsession maybe.

side note: Chaser324 is right that disclosure is fine but that isn't an ethics issue.

You make a valid point, my analogy is flawed, it doesn't translate directly to crowd funding as smoothly as I had originally conceived. Crowd funding as a concept blurs the lines between the exchange of goods, and investment. You're right, backing it does mean you have a stake in the project, even if you're not financially profiting from it. I spoke to a senior business writer, and a business journalist here at work, to get their opinion, and both of them, without hesitation, agreed that disclosure is paramount if you've crowd funded something that you are reporting on, whether that be an opinion piece, or some kind of factual journalism. They didn't feel it was necessary to recuse themselves completely, but, certainly, disclosure.

What vested interest, specifically?

@oldirtybearon more or less immediately made the point I would make at the start: My biggest problem with the games press is that they posture as journalists, they claim to want to be seen and treated as journalists, and yet are only willing to claim the responsibilities of a YouTuber. If you want to be a journalist, full disclosure, even about things you don't even personally see as a conflict of interests, but some in your readership might, should be a top priority.

There was a Reddit post on /Games that talked about Patricia Hernandez living with an indie dev and covering and mentioning that dev in her work on multiple occasions. In Patrick's tumblr a few days ago, he linked to a Forbes piece that included this line:

We’re trying, though it may be some time yet. We want to be more New York Times and less TMZ as we continue to grow and learn, another reason we avoid stories like the one above.

If someone who worked for The New York Times had a conflict of interest on that level and repeatedly did not disclose that in her work, they would be out on their ass. If this field wants to aspire to be actual journalists, they need to start conducting themselves like actual journalists. You can't have the cachet, the authority, the influence of a journalist, but deny any of the responsibilities and conduct that come with it if you want to be taken seriously. Which is why there has been widespread mistrust between the enthusiast press and their readership going back for years now.

I remember back when the Mass Effect 3 ending debacle was raging, and most of the press was acting as the press does; denying the ending was a major problem, mischaracterizing why people were upset with it, refusing to even entertain any opinion other than their own. It made people bitterly angry, and only a select few in the press (Erik Kain, Jim Sterling) dared to try and lend credence to the complaints. I remember that debacle and thinking "this sort of widespread rivalry between the press and their audience isn't sustainable, something's going to give at some point unless things change." Here we are, about two and ahalf years later. Zoe Quinn isn't actually important, herself, to all that many people. She's just the straw that broke the camel's back, the spark that ignited what was already sitting there, or whatever other equivalent cliche you can imagine.

The mistrust either needs to be healed, or more and more people will just bleed to YouTube or Twitch and leave sites like Polygon in the dust. It isn't a coincidence that Giant Bomb, a site least like their "journalisty" contemporaries, probably has the healthiest future.

Somewhat tangential, but is there a product or a project or something involved with Zoe Quinn's Patreon? Is it connected to that Rebel Jam, or is that not going to happen or..?

A couple Youtube personalities I like have their own Patreons, but I haven't supported them because a) I'm thoroughly poor, and b) they don't have a project attached to their Patreons, so it feels like I'm paying them to keep being themselves. When people are living these media-personality, upper-middle-class, exploring-my-art, traveling-to-events lives and it's up to grubby working-class types to foot the bill I start to feel like they're asking less for a value transaction and more like they're asking for a tithe.

It is an ethics violation because reporters and journalists by the nature of their profession are responsible uphold the public trust. You can try to frame this as "subscribing to a service" all you want, but that just doesn't hold water. Disclosure isn't "fine", its required by their profession and a part of the journalist code of ethics. http://www.spj.org/ethicscode.asp

Brodehouse does bring up a good topic on that tangential topic about what is worth "a subscription" that we (tangentially) see in games as well which feels like a better topic than this. :(

This sums up my feelings far more succinctly than I managed. If anything, paying for a product means you expect more from it than getting it as a perk of the job free of charge. I don't see why being someones patron is anymore likely to bias your views on their work than being a personal friend. And I don't expect a film critic to tell me "I've met Wes Anderson several times, we've hung out & I really like him". If you trust Ben Kuchera as a games writer (or journalist if you want) then you trust he won't be biased because he's someones patron. If you don't trust Ben Kuchera then why do you read his articles except to get mad? I don't get it.

@n1nj4d00m:

What is the violation of public trust? Why can't Ben Kuchera report on the goings on about what is happening to Zoe Quinn? Because he might have had a positive thought or two about Quinn? If you can't catch my incredulous tone, I believe your stance is pretty incredulous. I have no idea what world you live in that a reporter can't write on things they know about.

Just out of curiosity what would you write if Patrick wrote something new on Zoe Quinn? If you have a slightly positive thought about Giantbomb, Patrick or anything else then I guess you can't say anything less you violate some trust.

He CAN write about it. But if he's giving her money he should at least disclose the fact in the article he writes. I don't have a problem with reporters having connections, that's inevitable. The violation occurs when money changes hands that is kept secret. He's not writing about "things he knows about" he's writing about someone he is involved in a financial transaction with.

With gaming "journalism" in its current form I don't think it matters much, because there is no true gaming "journalism." Gaming sites are almost entirely op-ed pieces written by bloggers, with some news on the side. To my knowledge there is not a single journalist that covers video games exclusively that would pass the Reuters test of Standards and Values (http://handbook.reuters.com/index.php?title=Standards_and_Values). If the gaming industry wants real journalism, it's going to need to clean up its act in every aspect, not just regarding collusion/nepotism/etc. The very fact that game publishers/devs can buy ad space (effectively paying the bills) on the same sites that review their games is a huge conflict of interest.

As far as I'm concerned, if the people involved with all of these controversies want to be known as journalists, they need to act like journalists first.

Patrick's connections to Zoe are well established:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lGiUHF2iqkY

As far as I know he hasn't given Zoe any money or vice versa. I don't really agree with Patrick's stance on a lot of issues he brings up, but he seems like a games journalist who takes the ethics side of things very seriously. I'm sure if he did write an article it would clearly disclose any level of personal involvement with her. Again, the issue isn't the fact that people have connections in the industry, its when those are kept secret from the public.

Bare-minimum answer: yes, it is ultimately better for everyone involved (maybe not conspiracy-lovers, but they'll find a way to freak out no matter what) for these type of donations to be disclosed as plainly as possible.

What I think is important, though, is to reiterate the difference between correlation and causation within these circumstances. We can assume that a person does not contribute funding unless they hope to see a result, but what exactly can that mean? It could be that

• there is some necessity for professional use (I believe Patrick has stated that he doesn't contribute to game Kickstarters unless it's the only way to receive a copy for review)
• they like the concept/presentation behind the project's pitch, especially if they have enjoyed similar products in the past
• they are familiar with and/or enjoy the work of one or more of the project creatives, and want to see continued output from that person

Now, I don't think I've seen an argument that the first possibility would color the opinions of such a contributor, so let's examine the more biasing options. First, let's get it out that reporting on and drawing attention to a Kickstarter that has not yet met its funding goal is very much a gray area, and doing so without disclosing a contribution you've made to the project can probably just be called outright unethical. At that point, you're affecting your own benefit by increasing the likelihood that you'll receive a thing you may not otherwise have. Straight-up cause and effect.

On the other hand, let's assume a journalist decides to do a piece on the independent development studio formed as a result of a Kickstarter, one month after its completion. This journalist also contributed some sum of money to the Kickstarter while it was still in progress. Do we call that a conflict of interest? Consider that the type of game being developed is of a genre that hasn't been prevalent in over a decade, but that some of their absolute favorite childhood games belonged to. Or, perhaps, one of the developers is a person who this writer shared a flat with for a couple years after college, and who befriended them while getting their start in the industry. Would the journalist have been less likely to write about the studio in either case had they not made a contribution? Or can we reasonably assume that both the reporting and the money donated both stemmed from their inherent appreciation for the project?

Here's what I don't trust: a critic who assigns more or less credit to a piece of media than they think it rightfully deserves based on their own measure of appreciation. People are not, broadly speaking, dispassionate in their analysis, and to ask that of a writer is to ask them to be dishonest with you. If you don't truly value their opinion, why seek out the writing?

Is it really that hard for games writers to avoid donating to games? Just avoid it completely and there won't be any questions about integrity. Having a few dozen individuals not contribute won't sink a game if it is destined to be made.

In defense of Zoe and any other developers who have had the press contribute to their games, I'm not sure that giving money to a product you believe in is any different from doing a positive preview of a game you're looking forward to. It would only be an issue of integrity if your money was an investment rather than a donation, at least in my opinion.

I'm pretty sure its totally different.

Well, I'm not targeting anyone in general, but if you want to be taken seriously as a critic or journalist, just avoid the whole thing until it's released and they send you a review copy. It can't really be that hard can it? Call it drawback of the job.

Then you can avoid being criticized for using your position to push an agenda. If, god forbid, it ever came to that of course.

You make an excellent point, but I think most people's criticism comes down to the nepotism and cronyism that seems to be rampant in the industry. Like an old boys club, but there's girls there? er.. anyway, there's a lot of people trying to break into the small games industry, and I think people are starting to see that unless you're part of the club, good luck getting the coverage that small games need. The press funding kickstarter campaigns is a small symptom of this.

You're confusing journalism with critique. A critic, like Roger Ebert, watches movies and gives you an opinion on it. A journalist collects and shares stories and information for an audience. Most critics want to use methods and reasoning for their opinions that are as objective as possible, or at very least, communicate their opinions in ways people can best understand. Most journalists are concerned with communicating accurate information in a manner as truthful and objective as possible, or at very least, communicate that information in ways people can best understand. Hence why most journalists have a distinction between reporting a story and delivering an editorial. The problem, if you choose to believe there is one, is when editorials are considered all journalism is, and information exists only so far as the editorial position requires it.

I've always found "SHE TRADED SEX FOR REVIEWS" to be erroneous, since relatively few of her closest allies are actual critics. Most are 'journalists'. They share stories that interest them and we necessarily believe that they are sharing all relevant information without bias coloring what information they choose to express. Now, this comes with a side issue; in that the current games journalism 'establishment', if you want to call it that, resembles a clique. A group of people who have outright stated that they look out for each other's best interests. This might come as a shock to an audience who was hoping that journalists would be looking out for the audience's best interests.

So per your argument, both journalists and critics need to be objective. What are you trying to say here?

I didn't argue that. I said most critics want to use reasoning that is objective as possible in order to express their opinion. They do. While someone might say they didn't like a movie, they'd probably not use an erroneous piece of information as their reason. If the reasons are purely subjective, they would attempt to communicate their position as clearly as possible. This happens all the time, even talking about the nebulous 'feel' of video game controls involves a great deal of communication. Critics who fail to communicate these things very clearly struggle to attract devotees.

Journalists are much the same. When a journalist provides evidence for their story, there's an expectation that they've collected other relevant data and are expressing everything that needs to be expressed for readers to understand the story as completely as possible. When a journalist claims that X game will be exclusive, we expect they have objective reasons for believing so. When a journalist says that Y+Z happened last week in games, we expect they have collected all relevant data for us to understand the situation as best as possible.

These are not scandalous or heavily prescriptive statements; they're commentary on what we expect from discourse. We expect to receive all of the information so as to make decisions for ourselves. We don't expect to only receive the information that the person speaking finds useful to share. At least not from people we describe as 'reputable'.

/thread.

I too find that happening ever more increasingly. I have found with time, members of the press in this industry trying to misrepresent the complaints people have so that they can easily dismiss it. I have found it disappointing seeing certain members of the press doing this over and over again. We had journalists kept up bringing up the (very silly) retake Mass Effect stuff but I don't think I ever seen one say simply they watched the Tasteful Understated Nerdrage video because it's much more difficult to dismiss.

I have sadly found there's at least one more member of the press who dismissed this whole debacle as misogynists being angry and sexist (and who's consistently misrepresented scenarios) who I honestly can't trust anymore.

The funny thing is you didn't answer the question. If what you take to heart the things you claim about "public trust" then it isn't about Patrick but ABOUT YOU.

This is why your stance is preposterous. You, Patrick, Ben, me, etc. are free to have opinions and can write about whatever they please. To suggest that Kuchera can't mention anything about Quinn is as silly as saying you can't mention anything about Patrick because you read stuff on Giantbomb.com.

There is a real story going on with Quinn. To suggest a reporter must completely dump their private and personal information out on how they may favor Quinn before they can report on Quinn is crazy.

Yes, I'd like there to be integrity in everything I read/watch/support.

Folks gotta keep in mind that just supporting a Patreon or a Kickstarter does not automatically create a conflict of interest.

I don't follow. The question is what would I write if Patrick wrote something new on Zoe? I probably wouldn't write anything. He clearly has some type of relationship with her that goes beyond a dev/reporter one, they have collaborated on at least one presentation together. That is clearly established in the public sphere and not hidden away on a patreon contributor page. So I wouldn't really see anything unethical there because his relationship is well known.

If Patrick is to continue his quest to be seen as more of a journalist and less of an enthusiast, would you see this relationship (or any other personal relationship with a game developer) as appropriate? Or would you see it as potentially damaging to his credibility and ability to be seen as objective?