Would it?
And I don't mean to be conspiratorial, just that my own experience of these situations is such that I would more readily believe the victim than a gaming publication. *shrugs*
-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
-
We have made minor adjustments to how the search bar works on ResetEra. You can read about the changes here.
Nathalie Lawhead, interviewee for Kotaku's Jeremy Soule sexual misconduct expose, accuses Cecilia D'Anastasio of unprofessional journalism
- Thread starter Deleted member 5853
- Start date
Would it?
And I don't mean to be conspiratorial, just that my own experience of these situations is such that I would more readily believe the victim than a gaming publication. *shrugs*
But they offered to show her the entire thing to proofread and fact check, and got the final okay from her personally, didn't they?
I completely agree Kotaku should have removed, or at least shortened the article as soon as Natalie asked for it, without question. In regards to interviewing and publishing and consent at the point of publishing though I can't see where they are to blame after everything that came out over this.
I have counselled multiple rape victims. Some relive it. Some go into a trance-like state where they barely recall what they've said. Some mention it like they're telling you about their favourite childhood toy. Victims do not conform to profiles or stereotypes, and acting like they do is harmful.
I was speaking about the two I know, and you'll note the "I very much doubt" with regards to Lawhead.
Going by their statements, I get the idea that both Cecilia and Kotaku don't think they actually did anything wrong. They don't show any remorse for how they handled their reporting, and give zero indication that they'll try to do better in the future. I wish I could say that they'd learn from this but it doesn't really look like they will.
Yup. Regardless of who is right and who is actually believed, Nathalie has it exactly right here:
I do have empathy for her, but if she couldn't actually read through the thing once it was done, maybe she shouldn't have agreed at all? No shame in declining.
Rough situation all around, but it could've been avoided. Fair to note a certain lack of accountability here too; I mean she's on her blog telling people to watch out for Kotaku and D'Anastasio - it should be noted she did make some mistakes herself, understandable though they might be.
Remember folks Journalists just like cops are not your friends. They'll throw your arse straight under the bus if it suits them & they wouldnt be talking to you if it didnt suit them.
Empathy does not mean blaming the victim even if you can understand any lapses in judgement.
It is pretty concerning how this was and is handled by Kotaku and their writer. This is such a touchy and sensitive subject. As a journalist, you can't speak to someone who is not a media professional about this using a bunch of journo lingo and then assume it's fine because technically, you have done the right thing. To me, that shows a lack of empathy, which is also visible in both Stephen Totilo's and Cecilia D'Anastasio's replys.
i'm deeply sympathetic to Lawhead, but at the same time i cannot see that kotaku has done much wrong. this is where the intersection between journalistic practice and lived experience meets and sometimes clashes. if you read everyone's statements fully, and trust that kotaku do indeed have the appropriate recordings and logs to show that the quotes in question were from the first interview which was on the record, then the article followed best practices for when dealing with awful issues like this.
it's true that a journalist isn't your friend when they interview you about something, but they're not necessarily thirsting after the next scoop either. it seems like D'Anastasio approached the story with a decent level of thought, and has responded well in her statement too. this doesn't invalidate Lawhead's feelings about the article, both can be true.
on the record means on the record. everything points to the parts of the article which have since been removed being stuff that was discussed in the first interview. i'm glad totilo has chosen to remove it at lawhead's request, but i also understand why a site might resist changing their articles unless there's something categorically wrong.
reporting on trauma, assault, must be tough, threading a needle where you are able to produce an article with the details you need, whilst making sure you respect your subject. being the subject of an article, which is then weaponised against you must be horrifying and degrading. i'm not sure how one balances the need to cover things like this and the victims rights to privacy and protection from abuse.
it's galling that at the end of all of this Soule remains untouched by all of this.
it's true that a journalist isn't your friend when they interview you about something, but they're not necessarily thirsting after the next scoop either. it seems like D'Anastasio approached the story with a decent level of thought, and has responded well in her statement too. this doesn't invalidate Lawhead's feelings about the article, both can be true.
on the record means on the record. everything points to the parts of the article which have since been removed being stuff that was discussed in the first interview. i'm glad totilo has chosen to remove it at lawhead's request, but i also understand why a site might resist changing their articles unless there's something categorically wrong.
reporting on trauma, assault, must be tough, threading a needle where you are able to produce an article with the details you need, whilst making sure you respect your subject. being the subject of an article, which is then weaponised against you must be horrifying and degrading. i'm not sure how one balances the need to cover things like this and the victims rights to privacy and protection from abuse.
it's galling that at the end of all of this Soule remains untouched by all of this.
I think its an all round shitty situation. She wanted to tell her story and hold the guy to account but didnt want to relive the story and certainly didnt want to be harassed by internet creeps off the back of it.
I feel bad for Nathalie, but i also dont think Cecile did anything wrong and i think Kotaku have handled the situation perfectly. Doesnt mean any of it is a good situation to be in and i hope Nathalie gets the support she needs.
Kotaku did nothing wrong.
Cecilia did nothing wrong in the lead up of publishing the article, except maybe underestimate cyber-harassers with rape fetishes. I can't blame her for that. She went beyond the minimum when she offered to run the article by the victim.
Cecilia's answer to the victim's email was factual but patronizing. She should've said "I'm sorry you're being harassed, i obviously can't edit the article (I don't even work there anymore) but the Kotaku editor can and here's their email."
Maybe it was pride? Maybe it was "protecting" her ex-editor? I don't know. Fortunately Kotaku did the right thing.
Cecilia did nothing wrong in the lead up of publishing the article, except maybe underestimate cyber-harassers with rape fetishes. I can't blame her for that. She went beyond the minimum when she offered to run the article by the victim.
Cecilia's answer to the victim's email was factual but patronizing. She should've said "I'm sorry you're being harassed, i obviously can't edit the article (I don't even work there anymore) but the Kotaku editor can and here's their email."
Maybe it was pride? Maybe it was "protecting" her ex-editor? I don't know. Fortunately Kotaku did the right thing.
Yeah I think she's being really unfair there. There's really no one that did anything wrong here, but her blog post is apparently factually wrong and should be mended. If Kotaku changed stuff for her, she should change stuff for them.
User banned (3 days): Drive-by trolling
Kotaku are still trash after all these years and nobody will convince me otherwise. In any case, to spend years publishing cringey features promoting the worst oversexualised aspects of gaming then suddenly try to posture as an advocate for social justice always struck me as odd.
Rules and standards and guidelines and facts should be tempered with empathy in cases like this. As important as the story was, it cost Lawhead so much afterward, and that's in addition to the trauma she already experienced. Isn't one of the major points of breaking news about sexual violence supposed to be emboldening survivors to speak up, supporting them, and not making them feel alone or scared?
I've given my fair share of praise to D'Anastasio and Kotaku at large for their reporting on social and political issues in the gaming industry, but this was a grave mistake on their part, if not legally, then ethically. The damage is done. Lawhead was retraumatized, and there may very well be gaming industry folks out there who have gone through the same thing but don't feel like talking to journalists anymore because of this event.
I have all the sympathy for Lawhead for everything she's had to go through, including talking about this and having to re-live her experiences again to call out one of the most respected journalists in the industry.
I sincerely hope Kotaku and all other media outlets that believe they stand for something are paying close attention to this and that they learn the right lesson when handling such a case.
I've given my fair share of praise to D'Anastasio and Kotaku at large for their reporting on social and political issues in the gaming industry, but this was a grave mistake on their part, if not legally, then ethically. The damage is done. Lawhead was retraumatized, and there may very well be gaming industry folks out there who have gone through the same thing but don't feel like talking to journalists anymore because of this event.
I have all the sympathy for Lawhead for everything she's had to go through, including talking about this and having to re-live her experiences again to call out one of the most respected journalists in the industry.
I sincerely hope Kotaku and all other media outlets that believe they stand for something are paying close attention to this and that they learn the right lesson when handling such a case.
Are you serious right now? Like, she couldn't even ask an editor to change it? Was she perhaps afraid of being incinerated by the editor's fiery breath?
Blaming Kotaku/Cecilia for publishing the information, if there is solid proof that they got it on the record, it was known that it was going to be published is in my opinion gaslighting.
Saying that someone should have known better when the information that was available at the time didn't say that at all.
Kotaku took the info down when told to, so nothing was done wrong from both sides.
Saying that someone should have known better when the information that was available at the time didn't say that at all.
Kotaku took the info down when told to, so nothing was done wrong from both sides.
The reason D'Anastasio statement focuses at least in part on her having followed generally accepted journalistic standards and ethics is because this is a claim that she intentionally misrepresented the nature of an interview to a rape victim, this is a terrible situation, but yes if you are accused of that and have the receipts to back up that you did not in fact do such a thing you would need to make that clear for the sake of your professional future.
Empathy for Lawhead is laudable but some of you are looking for a bad guy that doesn't exist.
Also it's very clear who has actually read the excerpts
Empathy for Lawhead is laudable but some of you are looking for a bad guy that doesn't exist.
Also it's very clear who has actually read the excerpts
Thanks for this completely irrelevant comment.
She doesn't even work at Kotaku and has no way of actually changing the text... Of course she could've asked her former boss (and it seems she did in the end), but at the same time Nat could've just gone straight to Schreier also. She even knew Cecilia didn't work there anymore.
The on-the-record/off-the-record/background thing is hard enough for people who work with journalists professionally to navigate, let alone someone who hasn't worked in this who is sharing vulnerable, personal information.
Cecilia is a great reporter who I've worked with pretty consistently for years. I sincerely doubt there was any malice behind this, especially considering her close reporting on the issue of how women in the gaming industry are treated.
Cecilia is a great reporter who I've worked with pretty consistently for years. I sincerely doubt there was any malice behind this, especially considering her close reporting on the issue of how women in the gaming industry are treated.
So you don't think it's strange that a site that publishes articles like this to raise awareness then goes on to publish articles featuring borderline cartoon child porn? like at all?
This is important
I understand the importance of journalism to publicize histories of misconduct to create awareness about a issue that most people can be ignorant. However, if the issue at hand is illegal in your country, and you are willing to go public with it in the hopes of hold people accountable, I really recommended to try the legal system before going to the press. Media don't really have the power to make anyone pay for anything. Ever. Media is the last resource to be used.
I also must say that Cecilia tone of I did nothing wrong is really off-putting. Not someone anyone should come out to in my opinion.
I understand the importance of journalism to publicize histories of misconduct to create awareness about a issue that most people can be ignorant. However, if the issue at hand is illegal in your country, and you are willing to go public with it in the hopes of hold people accountable, I really recommended to try the legal system before going to the press. Media don't really have the power to make anyone pay for anything. Ever. Media is the last resource to be used.
I also must say that Cecilia tone of I did nothing wrong is really off-putting. Not someone anyone should come out to in my opinion.
Assuming all parties are being honest here, it sounds like a partial misunderstanding, and partially a lack of understanding as to the publicity having one's story out in the public would be.
That this led to harassment, and ultimately a sense of it not being "the whole story" (Whether that's true or a result of regret for becoming a public figure in this regard), is terrible, but I hesitate to lay the blame at Kotaku's feet for this. I guess at the end of the day both parties should have insisted the other look over the article prior to publishing so there was no lack of clarity as to the content. Wouldn't have avoided the harassment if course.
That this led to harassment, and ultimately a sense of it not being "the whole story" (Whether that's true or a result of regret for becoming a public figure in this regard), is terrible, but I hesitate to lay the blame at Kotaku's feet for this. I guess at the end of the day both parties should have insisted the other look over the article prior to publishing so there was no lack of clarity as to the content. Wouldn't have avoided the harassment if course.
Reading all the info, it sounds like no-one was misleading and there was a lack of more communication instead of any malicious intent.
Cecilia's follow up email was factual, but not really sensitive given the circumstances.
Kotaku's removal of the offending lines seems like the best outcome one can hope for in a charged situation.
Let's see if we can spot the difference in empathy between these sentences:
- I don't work there, but I will ask them to change it.
- I don't work there, but you can ask them directly.
- Journalists don't change articles, tough it up.
You guys are being incredibly disingenuous right now.
Thank God Steven Totilo is decent person to change this articel (from what others kotaku members speak of him he's great).
I can't imagine the level of self indulgent assholery you have to have to respond "journalists don't change their articles after it's done".
I thought so highly of Cecilia, fuck that.
I understand that initialy there could be miscommunication, but when rape victim asks you to remove account of rape, the only acceptable answer is: I will do EVERYTHING to make it right for you!
I can't imagine the level of self indulgent assholery you have to have to respond "journalists don't change their articles after it's done".
I thought so highly of Cecilia, fuck that.
I understand that initialy there could be miscommunication, but when rape victim asks you to remove account of rape, the only acceptable answer is: I will do EVERYTHING to make it right for you!
Yeah I don't think Cecilia's email was good. Don't essentially dismiss the request and offer to give her advice about continually being harassed. Say you'll work on making it right.
Sounds like Kotaku handled the initial situation with complete responsibility to the victims, and due to the nature of the sensitive subject the victim did not choose to read through it and over a lengthy amount of time got confused about details. The only things anyone looks to have done wrong could be broken down to basically:
1. Cecilia could have navigated the victim through the first call better so they understood that (it seems like) most everything off that first call was "on the record". All parties might have understood this at the time, or Cecilia may have done just this, we don't know
2. Nathalie should have gone directly to Kotaku when she realized the article contained details she didn't want shared. Instead of ostracizing the publication and trying to deter others from using them, she probably should have confirmed with them her own recounting. Given they edited the article ultimately, I do not think they would have minded doing so from the beginning, with an amendment to it that sounds a little less snarky (imo).
3. When getting an email from Nathalie, Cecilia should have directed it to a proper recipient, let her know it was out of her hands now and that the editor would follow up with her, and that would about do it.
Those are the closest to "wrong" things I see having happened here. Feel free to disagree. But as others have said when I look at these as the worst "wrongs" being committed, there really isn't a bad guy here. But people are still going to get all riled up...
1. Cecilia could have navigated the victim through the first call better so they understood that (it seems like) most everything off that first call was "on the record". All parties might have understood this at the time, or Cecilia may have done just this, we don't know
2. Nathalie should have gone directly to Kotaku when she realized the article contained details she didn't want shared. Instead of ostracizing the publication and trying to deter others from using them, she probably should have confirmed with them her own recounting. Given they edited the article ultimately, I do not think they would have minded doing so from the beginning, with an amendment to it that sounds a little less snarky (imo).
3. When getting an email from Nathalie, Cecilia should have directed it to a proper recipient, let her know it was out of her hands now and that the editor would follow up with her, and that would about do it.
Those are the closest to "wrong" things I see having happened here. Feel free to disagree. But as others have said when I look at these as the worst "wrongs" being committed, there really isn't a bad guy here. But people are still going to get all riled up...
If your words aren't in print what are they even worth? That's why journalists will fight tooth and nail - it sucks.
Offering the final piece to review before publication is making it explicitly clear what's going to be published, no? I understand that the victim might not be in the right state of mind to review it, but Kotaku can't do much about that. They did their own due diligence before publication, at least, it seems. The response from the author is not great though.
I feel like nothing was done wrong in the initial story aside from clarification what would be on the record.
The follow up by D'Anastasio was pretty rough though, at least Kotaku went ahead and changed the article anyway.
The follow up by D'Anastasio was pretty rough though, at least Kotaku went ahead and changed the article anyway.
User banned (three days): drive-by trolling
Kotaku being exploitative for clicks and misleading an interviewee? That fits the bill. Every week or so I'll click on that dumpster fire and just see reworded facsimiles of the same posts that users made here or on the previous site - and it's been that way for a half-decade at least.
What I take on that is one is saying this :
The other is saying :
I understand it can be difficult to read it, I really do. But you should never assume what a journalist will write or not if it is on the record. Especially because it is a difficult subject.
The other is saying :
It is not OK, at all, to not submit it before with this kind of subject.
Yeah, that about sums it up. Kotaku themselves are pretty much entirely blameless here from what we know.
It was before. The survivor passed on reviewing it beforehand so it was sent to her after because of that.
I did, thanks to pointing it.
Well, then I would say this is really infortunate because of the subject, but this is on Nathalie here. I don't like this because it seems I am pointing my finger at a victim, the worst thing ever. But I don't see how that could have been handle otherwise in that specific context. The only thing you can do is having a a public guideline on how those subjects will be handle by editors.
Some of you really did not read Nathalie's post. Because this really isn't just an issue of "what phone call was this in?", it also is a question of "why was this part even focused on to begin with?" And the latter point remains unaddressed.
This is absolutely not "gaslighting"; are you serious? It is nowhere near the actions, intentions, or dynamics required for that to be fitting. Let's not diminish what that word means by throwing it around like this.
This is absolutely not "gaslighting"; are you serious? It is nowhere near the actions, intentions, or dynamics required for that to be fitting. Let's not diminish what that word means by throwing it around like this.
I mean, for one, they could've not focused on the details of exactly how she was assaulted within the article. Regardless of what was said on or off the record, as Nathalie's article points out there's plenty they could've focused on instead.
Cecilia/Kotaku doing this "by the book" doesn't mean they did everything correctly, if anything it means that changes need to be made to the book.
What parts should be focused on then? There is no rulebook for how to write articles about these sensitive subjects. Victims tell them for a variety of reasons and they react to them in such varying ways, I don't think any sort of rules could even be developed. That's why the writer gave her a chance to read it over before it was published and notified her immediately after it was published.
It seems to have just been an unfortunate situation all around
This is really unfortunate that it happened, and that Nathalie is experiencing negative fallback after being so brave in telling her story. I have to admit that given what is presented here form both parties, I can't say that I think Kotaku acted wildly out of line. That doesn't mean they didn't, just from what's been presented, it doesn't seem that way to me. I wish Nathalie had agreed to look it over before publication. With respect to how emotionally exhausting it would be, it seems like a bizarre choice to not want to sanity check something detailing such personal events about your life, no matter how trustworthy you find the journalist.