Editor's Blog: Lost Humanity 18 Aftermath


6 years ago


Thanks for writing that. Just wanted to say a few things in response.

1) Concerning your belief that editing Rob's article did not serve to alter its meaning, I have to disagree - in my view it actually went some ways to undermining it.

It seems to me that the entire point of citing Dave Cook and Lauren Wainwright was not to reveal them as figureheads of some grand game-journalistic conspiracy but rather to highlight the prevalence of 'corporate suggestibility' throughout all rungs of the industry. Without the freedom to recount the names and the (publicly declared) accounts of others, his call for accountability was neutered into vague generalities - something that goes against the very kernel of the article and something that you, as an editor, had a duty to defend.

2) You finish by saying that you hope you can try to rebuild any trust that might have been lost over the incident. I hope so too. The thing is, you haven't said how you're going to do this, you haven't said what you've learnt over the last week and whether or not given the chance you'd make the same decisions again. The thing about censure is that having now seen it at work, how can we as readers trust it isn't happening behind the scenes, that further threats of libel action (whether spurious or not) aren't determining the output and very direction of your website?

You know that Dark Souls screenshot at the header of your article, the one with the adventurer squaring up - sword and shield in hand - against the much larger and tougher foe? That should be you - you're our avatar in the industry, the one who should be prepared to defend your own voice so that what you've got to say is actually worth listening to. To extend the analogy further, just because Black Phantoms might be permitted to exist within the rules of the game, that doesn't mean you have to let them win.


11 2

Lost Humanity 18: A Table of Doritos


6 years ago

Hi all. I don't really write comments but all the stuff happening here lately has made it hard to keep quiet. Anyway, I thought I'd share with everyone an e-mail I sent to Eurogamer directly about it all.



To whom it may concern,

Rather than post a comment, I wanted to contact you more directly to register my dissatisfaction over your recent decision to edit Robert Florence's op-ed piece due to external pressure.

While I know I'm not privy to the specifics of the incident - though this has not been helped by your site's reluctance to explain or defend its decision - from reading around about it elsewhere I think I've got a general handle of the situation.

As I'm sure you're aware, the article questioned the integrity of certain elements of games journalism and called upon a greater degree of accountability by the profession as a whole. Yet by censuring a significant part of it - a part based on verifiable quotes of others made in the public sphere - you've left the impression, at least in my mind, that you've elected censure rather than free speech, cravenness over the importance of critical commentary. Ultimately, while that may be your prerogative, it's not what I expect from a website with such high journalistic standards, and it's the reason why I'm deleting my account and why I'm considering not returning.

I've read your site on a daily basis for the last 5 years, not primarily because of the information you impart but because of the quality and consistency of its writing. That, above all else, is the the value of your website and the currency with which you trade. It's why your readers choose your site over the competition and why they return. I hope you realise this in the future and at least explain your reasoning behind your recent actions and how they fit in with your own professional (and ethical) standards.

All the best,

29 0