EPTYou made a lot inaccurate points at the time and those still haven't been addressed by a bump.
I only see one you mentioned. Are there any others?
You make points I agree with but you've took a very small cross section of our work and lumped us in with everyone else. In our busy periods we publish about six features a week. Many of these are opinion based. That small amount you have highlighted wasn't.
If this is it, then this is just you unhappy with my assessment of your organization. It doesn't go against the general message and points of this piece.
If there are other inaccuracies, let me know, because with the people I verified the piece with; they didn't claim any.[/QUOTE]
No. I don't care how you assess "my organisation". You have however took a small cross section of examples and then used them to make sweeping statements and generalities.
I'd not feel comfortable making comments about the standard of journalism in any field if that was my methodology.
As the above poster recognises as well, this bump is cheap at best. The piece isn't really relevant to what people are discussing currently. [/QUOTE]
The "cross section of examples" were verified and accepted by both ESFI World and D-Esports (and/or their members heavily involved), neither disagreed or objected, only you. These generalities may be "sweeping", but they're accepted by nearly all parties involved.
If verifying your work by other individuals who are equally credited by similar work or more is insufficient to make comments about the standard of journalism, then you'll find working with others quite difficult.
The bump isn't "cheap" because I get nothing back in terms of actual value (I just like the discussions, all articles are posted in full on Team Liquid), the piece is heavily relevant to the current situation as it pertains to the obligations and issues journalism faces if they don't abide by expected relationships with current news sources and organizations.
You mentioned there were a lot of "inaccuracies". Please state where.
I'll correct where it needs to be corrected, but if you're just here to slander, then I don't think you'll do much at all.
If verifying your work by other individuals who are equally credited by similar work or more is insufficient to make comments about the standard of journalism, then you'll find working with others quite difficult.
The bump isn't "cheap" because I get nothing back in terms of actual value (I just like the discussions, all articles are posted in full on Team Liquid), the piece is heavily relevant to the current situation as it pertains to the obligations and issues journalism faces if they don't abide by expected relationships with current news sources and organizations.
You mentioned there were a lot of "inaccuracies". Please state where.
I'll correct where it needs to be corrected, but if you're just here to slander, then I don't think you'll do much at all.
First before I go through your "article" (it's not really feature length) let me advise you to learn something all real journalists understand and that is the difference between slander and libel. I mean, you also need to learn what both of them are as my comments amount to neither in whatever form but it's embarrassing you see anybody claim to be a journalist and get it wrong.
These dilemmas of hurting no one, but trying to please all are what E-Sports journalist sites almost every day.
Missing a word from the sentence but the sentiments are clear. You're saying e-sports journalist sites go out of their way to "try and please everybody". I can't speak for the inner workings of others but having held paid jobs and worked for many sites in the past I can honestly say this has never been on anyone's agenda. More often than not, such as we did at GotFrag and still do at Cadred, we challenge people who try and bully their way into having "e-sports credibility", which is why more often than not these big organisations look to control these sites.
CGS desperately wanted Cadred and GotFrag onside so they could control what we said about them by threatening to remove our access. Neither site relented but we still got to attend events anyway.
Your statement is general and a lazy conclusion based on no evidence (at least presented here) and you speak with no insight due to your inexperience within the industry.
E-Sports Journalism cannot be Independent.
Again, this is little more than a vague opinion you are stating as fact. Cadred does indeed operate independently of all other influences. We report on what we want to, as we want to. When bridges are burned it is never by us, nor do we seek to rebuild them when they are invariably resurrected from the ashes.
No one on the site has influenced a piece of editorial, nor paid for us to alter an opinion. We have run advertising features, although they are infrequent, but they wouldn't prevent us writing an article about the same people paying if there was a public interest requirement for us to do so.
We do work closely with organisations and try and find a happy medium but if something has to be reported there is nothing anyone can say to prevent us from doing so. The site isn't sponsored by anyone, it is the extension of a privately owned business and the owners are dedicated to independent reporting and high quality content, not acting as an extension of anyone's PR division.
All three of these websites are starving for editorials/opinions
Define starving. Our website runs more editorial than any other e-sports site out there, has had guest columns from some of the biggest names in the industry, is home of the longest running e-sports column (which I write) and has regularly published articles deemed "inflammatory".
Does you taking a screenshot of one week of content where the number of informative pieces outweighs editorial really mean the site is starving of the content. Had you looked at the articles on the page before that you'd see there was plenty of editorial content.
Lazy "research" to validate a point.
But, let’s say a news media site does get a pretty juicy story from a reliable source: do you think the source will be named?
Not naming sources who divulge information such as this is nothing to do with e-sports and everything to do with journalistic ethics. I won't bore you with the details here but there's plenty of subject matter for you to study. This point doesn't tie to your article.
Journalists and news sites don’t have this rare ability and neither do their writers independently, not yet.
Here's an example of some of my pieces that say far worse than anything Scoots has done. They were printed on a site "starving" for editorial:
http://www.cadred.org/News/Article/161387/
http://www.cadred.org/News/Article/158712/
http://www.cadred.org/News/Article/139868/
http://www.cadred.org/News/Article/160761/
http://www.cadred.org/News/Article/52969/
http://www.cadred.org/News/Article/44363/
These are examples off the top of my head and there's probably hundreds more. In each piece we call out a person or organisation by name and slate them for what we perceive they have done wrong. If they are liars we call them so. I fail to see what prevents us from doing it.
E-Sports News Media Sites are not self-sustained.
Without knowing what you mean by "self sustained" I can't really address this properly. My gut is you're trying to imply that sites need organisations to survive. I'm afraid this simply isn't true.
As for why you bumped it despite it not being relevant... Reality is you crave attention. This is why you constantly criticise people who have made a significant contribution to the industry you profess to want to work in. It's easier to get noticed by association than it is to go out and make a difference yourself. For someone who claims to be passionate I wonder when you'll start doing some of that.
