Sony Blackballs gaming blog Kotaku

[8th lutz]

http://www.joystiq.com/2007/03/01/sony-bla...r-rumor-report/

 

Earlier today, gaming blog Kotaku reported on a rumored PlayStation 3 feature, set to be unveiled during next week's Game Developer's Conference. The key word, of course, is "rumored," a word which has since gotten the blog into hot water with Sony. The original article, which boasted one anonymous source, a smattering of founded speculation and repeated use of the aforementioned keyword, detailed "PlayStation Home," a visual mixture of the Xbox 360's achievement system and the Wii's customizable avatars.

 

Though most rumors come and go with little input from publishers ("no comment" has become de rigueur), this one became notable as soon as Kotaku was asked to take it down. In a calm and straightforward follow-up article, Kotaku's Brian Crecente reveals that the blog's failure to comply has led to a complete dismissal and excommunication from Sony. It seems clear that such a response lends the rumor more veracity, but the response itself is far more interesting in what it means for the rest of the blogosphere.

 

What did Kotaku do wrong? In contacting Sony for comment on the initial story, Crecente was informed that publishing the report could harm the business relationship between the two entities. Unresponsive to thinly-veiled threats, Crecente published the story, citing concern with informing readers and not with maintaining a corporation's announcement schedule. In an e-mail to Crecente, David Karakker, senior director of Sony's corporate communications, states that, "I am very disappointed that after trying to work with you as closely as possible and provide you and your team with access and information, you chose to report on this rumor.... I can't defend outlets that can't work cooperatively with us."

 

To me, sony blackballing a web blog means the rumor is true and it means sony wants to control all media people in the industry for reporting, meaning it is a good or a bad thing depending on how you look at.

[spacecadet]

a) Sony has now "unblackballed" Kotaku.

 

b) The wording of Sony's original email makes it clear that there is more to this story than Kotaku is letting on. This was obviously not the first problem Kotaku has had with Sony - it seemed like more of a "last straw".

 

c) No company is required to play nice with the press. Neither is the press required to play nice with any company. It's a two way street. Why should Sony *have to* invite a blog to one of their events? They're under no more obligation to do so than Kotaku is to report nice things about Sony.

 

Sony's been villified over this today (this is honestly the first time I've even had the chance to write anything that isn't buried under a pre-existing avalance of anti-Sony rants), and I agree that it's a pretty bad PR move, but objectively speaking, I don't see that Sony did anything wrong here. They basically said "if you're not going to cooperate with us, why should we cooperate with you?" That's the bottom line. If Kotaku want to report every little rumor they come across, that's totally up to them, but then they shouldn't expect to receive good treatment from the companies they're reporting rumors on.

 

It's not about "controlling the media". If you go around my neighborhood spreading rumors about me, should I be forced to invite you into my house? That's the equivalent analogy. Sony's not threatening a lawsuit or saying they're going to be busting kneecaps. They're not trying to shut Kotaku down or get them to stop writing about the PS3. They just said they weren't going to actively help them out anymore. There is a big distinction there. Kotaku chose to do their own work on this rumor story and they can continue to do so if that's how they want to operate; that's Sony's position.

 

I'm not saying Kotaku should be writing glowing things about Sony in order that they get invited to all the great events. What I am saying is that they need to realize that there are consequences for their actions, both positive and negative, and they need to both recognize and weigh those consequences when making editorial decisions. Sony's under no obligation to make it easy on them, so the question is, was this rumor worth the risk of severing ties with Sony over? Was this the right battle to pick? I mean this is not Watergate here; this is a rumor about an online service. Nobody's going to be damaged if we don't find this out until Sony officially announces it.

 

My opinion, as someone who's worked on both sides of the fence (I worked in marketing for Rockstar Games, and before that for an editorial video game web site) is that while Sony acted pretty stupidly from a PR standpoint, Kotaku are acting like some kind of high school newspaper. They're in some fantasy land where they're entitled to act however they want and all of their sources have to keep giving them access no matter what they say or do. That's just not realistic or smart. Private entities are just under no obligation whatsoever to the press; there's no Freedom of Information Act that applies to Sony. In most cases it's smart for companies to make nice with major press, but there's no ethical standard that says you have to open up your company and its invitation events to a blog that has written negative or factually incorrect things about your company in the recent past.

 

I think that ultimately Kotaku "won" this round because Sony's standing has been diminished lately, and Kotaku was operating from a position of strength. People have lost all sense of objectivity when it comes to Sony lately, which to me makes this kind of sad. Most of the people talking about "journalistic standards" a) have no idea what they're talking about, and b) are just using the phrase to disguise an anti-Sony rant that's been stewing inside them for a while. This is not about "good journalism" - there's nothing in good journalism about reporting unsubstantiated rumors.

 

btw I read Kotaku every day and like them, but they are not journalists. They're reporters, like most video game writers. They report, and that's what they did here - meaning they hear things and they make them public. There's no fact-checking, there's no editing or vetting. They don't know how to do anything else, and that includes exercising editorial control or restraint.

Edited March 2, 2007 by spacecadet

[Albert]

I agree that Sony is free to "blackball" anyone they want, but I think it was a pretty stupid move on their part. They need positive publicity, not another avalanche of negative publicity that this stunt provoked. Obviously they weren't happy with Kotaku for publishing a rumor (which was clearly labeled as a rumor), but threatening and then following through with their threat was very shortsighted on their part. Not sure what they thought was going to happen after that.

 

Also, by going after Kotaku they gave credence to the reported rumors.

 

..Al

[supercat]

I agree that Sony is free to "blackball" anyone they want, but I think it was a pretty stupid move on their part.

 

As far as I'm concerned, Sony still hasn't made proper amends for their apparent demonstrated belief that any computer someone wants to use to listen to one of their CDs belongs to Sony rather than to its owner.

[Mendon]

I look at it this way: Sony and Kotaku had a professional relationship; Sony provided them with a debug PS3, inside information, access to Sony excutives, beta's of software, and other gaming related items/information. In return, Kotaku printed stories about Sony and Sony products. Either side can make requests and/or stipulations of the other.

 

Lets assume the "rumor" is 100% true. But lets assume even more: **MAYBE** Sony wanted to be the ones to release the information and at Sony's chosen time, i.e. the upcoming conference. Sony asked Kotaku not to print the story for obvious reasons; Kotaku said they wanted to print it anyway. Sony said if you print it, there will be repercussions. Kotaku said "Oh well" and printed it anyway. Sony followed through on their promise. Kotaku now cries and whines how unfair Sony is.

 

Sony didn't threaten any legal action; Sony didn't try to close down Kotaku or stop them from publishing anything. Sony simply said "We'd like you to not print this story but if you insist on doing so, we will no longer give you the privledges that you once enjoyed". I see nothing wrong with this at all.

 

Kotaku had a good thing going and decided to "bite the hand that feeds them". Let them suffer the consequences of doing so. In fact, for Kotaku to print the personal Emails between themselves and Sony. makes Kotaku look like even more a crying & whining baby.

 

Sony may not be the best company around; Sony may not have the best PR department in the world; Sony may make plenty of mistakes. But in this case, I don't see Sony as a villian at all.

 

 

Mendon

 

 

UPDATE: According to THIS, Sony and Kotaku have made up. Nice that everyone can play together once again!

Edited March 2, 2007 by Mendon

[chrisbid]

whatever happened to "no comment"