Can we trust "fan" sites and channels?

[stato]

4 minutes ago, HollowHills said:

Another insightful post, I think you make some good points here. Regarding the amount of effort required to accurately review a product like Soul Wars, you're right. It clearly is a large undertaking and I'm not saying those who do so shouldn't have access to free items for doing so.

I've picked out a particular quotation because it's something I want to respond to. When  it comes to mainstream journalism you can often find official policy on receiving goods or services from a company. For example The Guardian has a specific sub section in this code of conduct that discusses freebies, one paragraph states;

GNM will not allow any payment, gift or other advantage to undermine accuracy, fairness or independence. Any attempts to induce favourable editorial treatment through the offer of gifts or favours should be reported to the editor. Where relevant, payments, gifts or other advantages will be disclosed.

Now I know you can say that most of these bloggers and channels are small and fan operated while The Guardian is a major international newspaper. That's true, but I don't think it would be hard for content creators to have a short policy in video descriptions or on their websites that states something similar.

 

This just seems to be going in circles now.  Every review ive seen where reviewers got something for free from GW was for a preview, and as it was a preview they reviewer stated as much either in the review or in the title. 

Please post examples of where you think people have been given stuff free but have not stated it, because I just dont think it happens from GW, who only seem to send stuff out to hype pre-orders.

[JPjr]

Looking at the Guardian though, can you find me one book, theatre, film, album or live music review where they've added a disclaimer that they didn't pay for their ticket, album etc. Because I can assure you that in almost all cases (there will always be some exceptions) no one paid a penny for any of those things (in fact most music journalists and a lot of book reviewers used to make some extra pocket money actually selling review copies on each month down at places like the Music & Video Exchange).

Not saying they shouldn't declare but in terms of these things it's just assumed review copies (or tickets to a gig) are provided to the writers for free, so I guess even the Guardian doesn't think it's relevant in the case of reviews.

Saying all that I do know that Guardian food writers generally pay for their own meals, and I can understand that, because often they want to arrive unannounced and be treated like anyone else, not really possible to do with a time limited event.

[Klamm]

Quote

 

Can we have less talk of things like living wage please and more about plastic   Thank you!

#hereforthehobby

 

 

Quote

Also I should say my hackles are raised whenever I see any talk of 'ethics in nerd-hobby journalism' as it gives me flashbacks to vile little ****** using just that as a fig leaf for their hate campaigns in other corners of the nerd universe. Not saying that's what you're doing at all, but it brings back bad memories of a lot of people acting in bad faith.

Mostly a lurker on here, but I think we're losing something if we frame the debate as media-sceptic vs 'this debate doesn't matter'.

TGA is a pretty impressively non-toxic forum, which is commendable. Part of this comes from rules enforcement, which is perhaps more hands-on here than in other places. This is no a criticism. But it is to say that non-negative DOES NOT MEAN apolitical.

I've seen plenty of threads which acknowledge the relevant questions of race and gender in the hobby, either in GW's recent steps toward representation or in asking the questions of how to get/why aren't there more women in the hobby. Obviously, this is not to invite the kind of bad faith #GG ****** that we've seen. That mess was a backlash against the rise of discourse about inclusivity/representation within a non-introspective male culture.  It was not, in fact, a movement which articulated any *valid* critique for corporate ties with media and their non-transparent symbiosis. 

And 'introspection' is something I think  TGA should find room for. I know the living wage point seemed like a dark horse in the conversation, but it's relevant to the overall discussion about how we feel (and should feel) about our relationship to this corporation around which we construct parts of our identities. 

And it's more relevant than ever in the era of 'new-GW', with delightful personalities like Peach and Duncan or appetite-wetting hype mastery. The almost antagonistic relationship old GW had to us was bad, but a useful reminder of the fact that we are all consumers first, fans second. And it's not like GW engages in the kinds of unethical practices that, say, Apple does (there's no Foxconn for miniatures, thank god). But I've heard ****** from people who've worked/managed GW stores, and speaking as someone who has worked for places under the JD sports group, there's a space to criticize anti-worker practices. 

The nature of capitalism and of media discourse which relies upon it is one of symbiosis. Not inherently bad, but certainly co-dependant, and arguably an impediment to authentic appreciation (though we can argue about what use authenticity even IS in this context). In articulating that, a modicum of said authenticity is reclaimed. The corporate/media attachments don't really bother me, but I'm glad that there's a thread on TGA about it. 

[Overread]

A code of conduct is just a code, its not a rule or law its just internal policy that a company has to communicate managements intentions to its employees; and a general target to be upheld in public. Bloggers don't need a code of conduct because by and large they are one or two people, perhaps a small team in the case of something big like Beasts of War, so they don't have the same disconnect from the top to the bottom of the company that a major newspaper has.

 

Plus, and I think this is important, has the wargaming blogging community ever actually had a situation where its clear that they've been paid/bribed/otherwise pressured into writing a powerfully positive review for something that had massive and clear faults? Ergo has there actually been a problem which has occurred?

The only example I'm seeing is mentions of the gabs in the snap-to-fit AoS models, a feature mentioned by some early preview bloggers/sites. In addition though this is miniature work. Gaps and such happen on many high grade models, so its easily something many overlook as just part of the hobby. Heck go look at the new Forgeworld photos for their new sumpkroc and its got huge gaps showing on the page itself - and that's direct GW marketing on their own store page.

The only people who might be caught out by minor gaps would be newbies who are inexperienced or experienced players who are getting a bit more attentive to their models. Otherwise many wargamers are used to the odd crack or filling that needs attention for that "perfect" model. Just like resins need bubbles filling or warping fixing or metals unbending or the dreaded mouldlines etc...

 

 

 

Far as I can tell we've a storm in a teacup situation here whereby there's a lot of concern about a system that isn't failing and that isn't likely to fail due to the nature of the market. Heck remember Finecast? Did any blogger or site sing its praises once it was out in the mass market - sure early reviews might have been positive when they got good copies, but enough went out that it was very commonly known and aired that there were serious quality control issues with the material (its detail retention was great and often reported as such, but the problems with bits of mould release agent/rubber and bubbles were legion)

 

Ergo - have fan sites given us a reason not to trust them? 

[Ollie Grimwood]

For people to have early release stuff there needs to be a certain amount of corporate involvement just for the products to be provided.  I suppose we could go back to the way it was with no involvement but I seem to remember people enjoying that even less. 

AoS is blessed with a couple of well produced and publicised  shows in Warhammer Weekly and The Honest Wargammer who make get efforts to both maintain and advertise their independence.  Not that I find (or found ) the shows with more advertised links such as Heelanhammer fawning or uncritical.  

It’s the same as any media outlet the viewer needs to use their own discretion a bit when making judgements based on the opinions of others.  Just because someone is being critical or negative doesn’t mean they are anymore truthful than the one being positive.   I’ve always found the Wargamers a bit more shrewd than the general public at large so I don’t worry about it too much. 

 

[Overread]

1 minute ago, Ollie Grimwood said:

It’s the same as any media outlet the viewer needs to use their own discretion a bit when making judgements based on the opinions of others.  I’ve always found the Wargamers a bit more shrewd than the general public at large so I don’t worry about it too much. 

It's not just that, but that the nature of the hobby means that wargamers are pouring over every little detail and inch of products. Cleaning and assembling and painting really makes you pay attention to a model and those with experience really are looking at very fine errors and problems. A lot of Kickstarters have had huge issues with this when they've found factories in china who are able to produce great masters, but fail to produce at a high standard when going into mass production. 

Errors that some other products can get away with (esp toys) are just not possible with wargames without them being spotted and pointed out. Sure the promotional models that are sent to reviewers early might be more error free (ergo staff might give them a once over check before sending them out); but that's a tiny market sample. 

Plus lets not forget errors and problems are resolved by GW very quickly, their customer service is very good at replacing things sent in error or with problems on them. I shudder to think how much money GW must have lost on finecast in terms of how many replacement parts had to be cast and posted free of charge to people. 

[HollowHills]

Here is a specific example,

Spikey Bits, Chapter Master Valrak and KirothTv all responded with criticism to GW's decision to raise Forge World prices in the US. Other groups did not comment on this. I would state (to be clear this is not a statement of preference or agreement with the names just mentioned) these sources tend to be more critical of GW than others, for example miniwargaming, guerilla miniatures or (in the past) The Bad Dice podcast.

It also seems like some sources who are more critical at times tend to have less of a relationship with GW, with regard to new releases etc, than others who are less critical.

To be clear I'm not saying that one group are representative of free, unbiased press and the others are GW proxies.

 

[Overread]

I wonder what country some of the reviewers are in. I would wager bloggers in overseas territories (eg the USA) would be far hotter on the FW price rises; whilst those based in the UK likely were not affected so didn't feel much need to talk about it. Similarly I'd wager bloggers blogging in language other than English likely complained far more so (I've no idea as I can't read other languages and so only follow the english stuff) 

[RuneBrush]

I'm not sure the FW price structure change is necessarily the best example if I'm honest.  It doesn't have a huge impact for the AoS community as we don't have a massive range of FW products available and gone are the days of the "must have" FW products like Sayl and the Mournghul.  I listen to quite a few podcasts and every 30k one mentioned it, with none of them thinking it was positive (other than the static postage rate, which is very positive) - this includes some who have had support from GW and based in both the UK and other countries.

Not necessarily sure I'd hold up Spikey Bits as a site that employs good practice either

[Ollie Grimwood]

10 minutes ago, RuneBrush said:

 

Not necessarily sure I'd hold up Spikey Bits as a site that employs good practice either

I’ve always felt much their “criticism” is more about how they are annoyed that GW doesn’t provide them with free stuff or treat them as the oracle on community opinion rather than any journalistic integrity 

[stato]

36 minutes ago, HollowHills said:

Here is a specific example,

Spikey Bits, Chapter Master Valrak and KirothTv all responded with criticism to GW's decision to raise Forge World prices in the US. Other groups did not comment on this. I would state (to be clear this is not a statement of preference or agreement with the names just mentioned) these sources tend to be more critical of GW than others, for example miniwargaming, guerilla miniatures or (in the past) The Bad Dice podcast.

It also seems like some sources who are more critical at times tend to have less of a relationship with GW, with regard to new releases etc, than others who are less critical.

To be clear I'm not saying that one group are representative of free, unbiased press and the others are GW proxies.

 

Have any of the other places reviewed anything forgeworld?  did they actively block discussion (note discussion, not ranting) about the topic on their forums? would you expect those companies to put out a statement on everything GW do?  A similar example could be GWs profit statement, I didnt see anyone put out a review of that and warn gamers to not invest in GW games as they might have issues (they wont, but its an example).  If any of these places had reviewed a Forgeworld product and said it was great and pricing was good value then yeah you would have a point.

 

[JPjr]

I think we can probably all agree that irrespective of 'ethical' stances a weirdly high number of editorial sites catering to this hobby are borderline garbage and just seem to copy & paste WH Community articles these days.

As far as I can see with a lot the extent of their own input seems to be going through the text and adding in a few spelling mistakes. I mean seriously has any article on BoLS ever been proof-read? Even just a cursory glance, I can't imagine they have.

[zedatkinszed]

4 hours ago, HollowHills said:

 

1) We know GW provides certain bloggers, Youtubers and so on with free product. 

2) We know some of them, not all, tend to give very favourable opinions on GW products without much significant criticism. 

3) We know a relationship of sorts exists between these content creators and GW that contains at least one formal element, an NDA relating to when they can release their content. 

4) We know these content creators are not professional journalists and not bound by any official code of conduct etc. 

 

3

1) Once again this how retail journalism happens - it's not an issue.

2) Once more this is down to the quality of content creator not a conspiracy.

3) Good Lord this a reach! NDAs prohibiting reviews until after launch are a normal part of marketing

4) Wrong. As stated multiple times GWare bound by ASA regulation in the UK and the content creators are by the equivalent groups in their countries.

1 hour ago, HollowHills said:

Spikey Bits, Chapter Master Valrak and KirothTv all responded with criticism to GW's decision to raise Forge World prices in the US. Other groups did not comment on this. I would state (to be clear this is not a statement of preference or agreement with the names just mentioned) these sources tend to be more critical of GW than others, for example miniwargaming, guerilla miniatures or (in the past) The Bad Dice podcast.

It also seems like some sources who are more critical at times tend to have less of a relationship with GW, with regard to new releases etc, than others who are less critical.

To be clear I'm not saying that one group are representative of free, unbiased press and the others are GW proxies.

3

OK this does not make sense. So you're pointing to people who DID critique the issue and then in the same breath say that others who didn't aren't bad.

And BTW I heard WHW bring this issue up during their show with Doom and Darkness. Forgeworld prices are bemoaned all the time. I've never heard anyone saying "What a great deal" when talking about FW.

Sorry, but you're tarnishing the reputation of many people here without evidence. That is not fair. And in the middle of it all you throwing in the "living wage" stuff. Apologies but this looks like a GW conspiracy theory.

[Brad Gamma]

I've been reading this as it goes and now I feel I should add my voice.

Just to start by saying that like @JPjr  I am very skeptical of conversations about "journalistic ethics" in the nerdier community. They are rarely a mature discussion of whats ethical, but a mix of conspiracy, witch-hunting and over-exaggerating the most minor of things. This thread so far hasn't really changed my opinion.

There has been no example that comes anywhere near what I would describe as unethical. In fact barely an example that I would even describe as unintentionally misleading. Some of the things brought up are actually more representative of problems within the community itself i.e. overreacting and misunderstanding the hobby. Stuff like the space wolf codex errata and sequitor numbers, units being "unplayable".

Not mentioning FW price increases? Surprised MWG didnt bring it up in one of their gorkamorka campaign videos? No I'm afraid you didn't have a specific example at all, you made a vague assertion about some talented content creators based on how "critical" you felt they were about GW, without making any distinction between the sort of content that those creators tend to make and what you might expect them to produce.

The sort of people who decide to devote a huge chunk of their time to creating fan sites tend to love the hobby. Their outlook on things is skewed towards the positive. They are excited and close to the action. Thats it. Even if they were being positive towards Games Workshop for the sake of it, the net impact on you would likely be nil.

 

[Bueno]

What is the point of this thread?

[Gaz Taylor]

2 minutes ago, Bueno said:

What is the point of this thread?

And on that note....

+++ Mod Hat On +++

@HollowHills - Hopefully you have had the answer/discussion you wanted but this is now just going round and round in circles. I'm locking this now