Nathalie Lawhead, interviewee for Kotaku's Jeremy Soule sexual misconduct expose, accuses Cecilia D'Anastasio of unprofessional journalism

TheMango55

Banned
Nov 1, 2017
5,788
Assuming they aren’t lying about what was discussed during which phone call (which would be bad for them), I’m not sure what Kotaku could have possibly done differently.

people say they should be more thoughtful in what details they share, but if they share the details that the interview subject thought were important to share during the interview, why would they choose to not report that? Wouldn’t that itself be a disservice to the person who is trying to share her story?
 

deepFlaw

Member
Oct 25, 2017
19,715
Assuming they aren’t lying about what was discussed during which phone call (which would be bad for them), I’m not sure what Kotaku could have possibly done differently.

people say they should be more thoughtful in what details they share, but if they share the details that the interview subject thought were important to share during the interview, why would they choose to not report that? Wouldn’t that itself be a disservice to the person who is trying to share her story?
But her point is that there are other details she shared that weren’t reported in favor of oversharing the specifics of the assault. If leaving out these graphic details would somehow be a disservice, why isn’t leaving out the other details of his abuse that she shared also a disservice?
 

Thera

Member
Feb 28, 2019
8,078
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.
Yeah, they could. That's it. But they didn't (note that I didn't read the four sentences because, well, Nathalie doesn't want people to read it, so I won't).
I read too much stories about people being quite angry at articles journalist write without having anything to say on the content. On any subject, even small ones. So letting an article being published on that kind of subject without reading it, or letting someone I already told the story to check it, nope. I would never, ever let that happened.

Making "change to the book" is what I purposed too (but even with that, not checking? Still no, not with sensible topics).
 

Syriel

Member
Dec 13, 2017
10,458
If what Cecilia is saying is true (and she has recordings to back it up) then I don't feel like Kotaku did anything wrong here journalistically speaking.

It's a miserable situation all around but a tricky tightrope to walk. At what point should newsworthiness cede to someone's sense of comfort and well-being? I don't know that I'm personally equipped to answer a question like that.
The SPJ Code of Ethics covers it.


Minimizing harm is a key element of reporting sensitive stories. This isn't really a controversial point among writers or editors (gotcha outlets excepted).

Truth is the ultimate defense to libel/slander, but something being true does not always mean it is newsworthy.

For an experienced journalist this is a discussion that has to happen with an editor every time a sensitive topic is broached. If a writer has never written about a sensitive topic, it should be done hand-in-hand with an editor or senior writer.

This x100, all the fake wokes not reading and jumping on bandwagon to lynch. The article is very clear cut, Cecil follows all protocols and have all the receipts to back it up. Nat simply forgot or have a misunderstanding from the communication. The article came up, Nat got harassed, and perhaps she regretted for sharing her info, then Kotaku removes some quotes to reduce further harassment from happening to Nat.

OP, this is not a very good post, only serves to create stupid conversations from ppl who doesn't read the op.
This is a disingenuous reply. "On the record", by the book, and "receipts" are not a free pass to publication for every comment. Context and situation are key.

A politician caught in a lie? Put them on BLAST!

A sexual assault survivor? Kid gloves.

Cecilia gets the benefit of the doubt for her initial work, but that email reply in the OP is horrendous. Absolutely the wrong thing to say and the wrong approach to take.

It already spread, that's why they've already posted a response. This forum is late to the game.

Kotaku and D'anastasio made the wrong call by sharing the explicit details of the interviewee's encounter, irrespective of whether they were shared on or off the record, and D'anastasio's response in particular makes is very clear that her only real concern is defending herself against the specifics of consent. Kotaku may have excused themselves from further discussion but that doesn't mean there's no discussion to be had, or that this is merely a misunderstanding that has now been clarified.
Without the recordings/notes (which shouldn't be shared outside of Kotaku, full stop) no one can say how Cecilia came across in the initial convo. If we assume best intention on both sides, there was a miscommunication in the comfort level of what details could be shared.

The big misstep was on the response and the immediate jump to a refusal to change. The correct response should have been to point out the job switching and an offer to get her in touch with Tolito ASAP to address concerns.

A big part of editing is what to leave out.
This is the most important part of the job of any journalist.

I'm surprised how many here are not very sympathetic to Nathalie's circumstances.

It sounds to me that the journalist mishandled the information she was bravely given by the victim. Even if it was something "on record", you absolutely have the responsibility to make your full intentions known to the interviewee in whatever way is comfortable for them. Victims of sexual assault already have enough trouble coming forward as is. Confusing them with on record/off record conversations that blur the information shared is irresponsible.

That email response from Cecilia really said it all, so blunt and defensive when a person has been hurt by your work.

Nathalie's blog post wasn't just about the few quotes used that Kotaku removed. It was also a criticism of the entire piece and how it told the story.

I hope lessons have been learned. I feel terrible for Nathalie, imagine feeling so traumatized that it takes you months to work up the resolve to just read an article about your interview where you gave your trust...and then have it damage you even more. Ugh.
This is a read I can agree with. I doubt there was malice on Kotaku's side, but the handling (from what has been made public) was less than stellar.
 

Antrax

Member
Oct 25, 2017
7,901
This particular bit is weird to say the least:



"I'm not removing the description of your rape, because journalism. Let me offer a few tips about how to survive the consequences instead". Like, what the everliving fuck? Surely protecting rape victims falls squarely within the category of "good reasons to edit an article"?
Yeah, the rest is uncomfortable but seems like it's above board. This response though is pretty....insensitive, to say the least.
 

Antrax

Member
Oct 25, 2017
7,901
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.
Yeah, I don't see why anyone would come forward in the future, especially to Cecilia/Kotaku. Definitely a chilling effect, especially with that email.

Honestly, it got papered over by how shit Thiel and Hogan are, but Gawker and its affiliates have a record on this kind of thing, and it's not great to see them in 2020 falling back to "I'm a journalist, and that means I don't edit shit unless legally required." That's legal to say, but it's also extremely insensitive and gruff.

Edit: ugh, mobile. Sorry for the DP
 
Oct 25, 2017
6,982
Toronto, ON
At the very least, Lawhead didn't feel heard by the original story and felt that all her identity and journey had been boiled down to a single set of salacious details. D'Anastasio and her editors should have been aware of how this would come across and handled her quotes and story-presentation much more delicately. This should have happened even without Natalie reading the text and giving her notes...an article's subject shouldn't need to give input to make that article into something that is sensitive and thoughtful.

And the response by D'Anastasio...not technically unprofessional, maybe, but strangely numbed and callous.

My sympathy skews to Lawhead here.
 

Morrigan

Elden Lord
Moderator
Oct 24, 2017
22,921
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.
True, but even if Cecilia made an error of judgment in writing about those details, she did offer to run the story by Nathalie before publishing. But Nathalie declined. She had her reasons and I respect them, but yeah, it could have been avoided. It's just an unfortunate situation all-around.
 

Kyle Barrett

Banned
Mar 5, 2018
125
At the very least, Lawhead didn't feel heard by the original story and felt that all her identity and journey had been boiled down to a single set of salacious details. D'Anastasio and her editors should have been aware of how this would come across and handled her quotes and story-presentation much more delicately. This should have happened even without Natalie reading the text and giving her notes...an article's subject shouldn't need to give input to make that article into something that is sensitive and thoughtful.

And the response by D'Anastasio...not technically unprofessional, maybe, but strangely numbed and callous.

My sympathy skews to Lawhead here.
If it weren't for that email image, I don't think I'd even question D'Anastacio. And I think it's important to note that there's a lack of full context in regards to that email, especially since Kotaku (and presumably D'Anastacio) removed the parts she was referring to anyway. So we're assuming when reading that single response that it is in regards to the aspects at hand, but we don't know what Lawhead's email said.

You could see in terms of legality that revising language without an update might not be a completely simple matter, especially given the subject.

I don't mean to say my sympathy does not lie with Lawhead here - because it really fucking does. It's her truth and it's clearly been misrepresented and that sucks. And if she's received even more shit because of it, that's totally awful. There doesn't seem to be happy middle ground here. Part of me feels like she just may not have been ready to go THAT public with it and Kotaku was the amplifier that has probably allowed a scummy subset of the internet (who need not be named) to make her life worse. But I don't know if the extent of the misrepresentation is the problem in that situation.

I think that scummy subset would have sent her shit even if the article didn't have to go into excruciating detail.
 

Nerokis

Member
Oct 25, 2017
3,637
But her point is that there are other details she shared that weren’t reported in favor of oversharing the specifics of the assault. If leaving out these graphic details would somehow be a disservice, why isn’t leaving out the other details of his abuse that she shared also a disservice?
I suspect the stumble here occurred in the context of a push-pull where, on one hand, there might be an imperative to substantiate an allegation with some amount of detail and, on the other, every additional published detail could potentially have consequences for the victim.

Now, between deadlines, miscommunications, legal issues, PR pressures, etc., properly balancing the need to be precise and fair and the need to prioritize your source’s comfort and safety every single step of the way probably feels like walking a tightrope through a storm. When it comes to this kind of reporting, the usual journalistic guardrails will never substitute for a preponderance of empathy, and that’s where Cecilia and Kotaku may have fallen a bit short.

It’s a tough, inherently uncomfortable subject to maneuver around. I sympathize for Cecilia/Kotaku here, but Nathalie’s critique is important and valid.
 
Oct 25, 2017
6,982
Toronto, ON
If it weren't for that email image, I don't think I'd even question D'Anastacio. And I think it's important to note that there's a lack of full context in regards to that email, especially since Kotaku (and presumably D'Anastacio) removed the parts she was referring to anyway. So we're assuming when reading that single response that it is in regards to the aspects at hand, but we don't know what Lawhead's email said.

You could see in terms of legality that revising language without an update might not be a completely simple matter, especially given the subject.

I don't mean to say my sympathy does not lie with Lawhead here - because it really fucking does. It's her truth and it's clearly been misrepresented and that sucks. And if she's received even more shit because of it, that's totally awful. There doesn't seem to be happy middle ground here. Part of me feels like she just may not have been ready to go THAT public with it and Kotaku was the amplifier that has probably allowed a scummy subset of the internet (who need not be named) to make her life worse. But I don't know if the extent of the misrepresentation is the problem in that situation.

I think that scummy subset would have sent her shit even if the article didn't have to go into excruciating detail.
I agree it's complicated and messy. I don't take issue with your take at all, which is reasonable. I'll only say to this comment- "we don't know what Lawhead's email said" - that we do know exactly what Lawhead said. Take a look at the OP again, and you'll see Lawhead's original email (unless I misunderstood your point).
 

Zarathustra

Member
Oct 27, 2017
437
Cecilia has moved on from Kotaku. She couldn’t go back and edit the article herself (and she shouldn’t have done so either, before a review of the recordings by someone else, because that would make her look bad and guilty) and she also may not have wanted to contact her ex-employer for various reasons. She should have referred Natalie to Kotaku, but other than that, a bad situation all around which I think Kotaku handled fine.
 

Kyle Barrett

Banned
Mar 5, 2018
125
I agree it's complicated and messy. I don't take issue with your take at all, which is reasonable. I'll only say to this comment- "we don't know what Lawhead's email said" - that we do know exactly what Lawhead said. Take a look at the OP again, and you'll see Lawhead's original email (unless I misunderstood your point).
Nope you completely understood my post, I'd just missed that - that's a bit of an oops, I'm not (nor should I be) a journalist.
 
Update

rawhide

Member
Oct 28, 2017
2,867
Nathalie's latest post on this topic:


There's a lot more to it, read the full article:

If you follow me on Twitter then you will be familiar with what I’ve been going through, and the intention of this post.
I announced that I would write an open letter to game journalists about all this, so this is that letter.

My intention with this post is to completely share EVERYTHING about how my story was treated (this is mainly in criticism of Kotaku’s handling of this since they had access to legitimate sources which they pretty much universally shat on), the consequences this has had, how this has affected me, how this (the way the sources were treated) has protected him from possible legal repercussions, and (most important) how this has caused harm to what could have brought justice to eight different women (if not more) that came forward to either serve as sources for that story or were ready to be sources.

As I said, a lot of this will be in criticism of how Kotaku handled our story, and the way that Cecilia D’Anastasio treated us as sources (the article is titled “Two Women Accuse Skyrim Composer Jeremy Soule Of Sexual Misconduct” by Cecilia D’Anastasio on Kotaku).

This is the example I’m using, but I’m sure the same could be said about a lot of articles out there. It’s not just about that one story, or one journalist’s mishandling.
This article had the most access to sources (about eight women). It had a chance to truly establish a pattern of victims, patterns of behavior, and honestly do justice to those of us that had the courage to be sources.

Our story was not given justice. Mine certainly was not. Our abuse was sensationalized, instead of really given a fair chance.
The repercussions of this should not be understated.

Before I get into this I would like to make clear that this isn’t a discussion on “ethics in game journalism”. I hate that phrase for where it came from. I feel like it’s been driven into the ground with meaningless rhetoric similar to when someone says “beyond reasonable doubt!” when targeting a rape victim.

Instead, seeing the Weinstein convictions, I have had to wonder what this might mean for the game industry. I think it’s important to point out that Weinstein was brought to justice by the work of journalists that cared to believe, listen, RESPECT their sources, and do justice to the stories of these sources. That laid the groundwork for justice. Without that journalism, he would still be where he is.
After my experience, I don’t think we (in the game industry) have a platform for really giving a voice to such stories.

Coming from my own point of view, the problem has been a lack of actually “giving a shit” beyond the effort it takes to make a clickbait article. The issue is the inability to truly care (it’s not about ethics, it’s about actually giving a shit about us).
All this especially in context of protecting, and respecting sources.

When you come forward as a source for something like this it takes an immense amount of courage, as well as risk to your own personal well being to talk to a journalist.
That sacrifice should not be taken for granted. You have an obligation to do right by your source. Misquoting, being dishonest about what was said, not making sure that there is accuracy, or even placing your source in harms way by publishing something that you ASSURED THEM you would not… is disrespectful to the sacrifice your source is making by just talking to you.

This post is an open letter to game journalists, assuming there is interest in caring about this topic.
I also apologize for any sarcastic or defeatist tone this post will have about game journalism. I’ve been drowning in the aftermath of this. I would like to acknowledge that game journalists have meant a lot to me in the past in terms of platforming my work, and this has saved me when I was in a place where I was just picking myself up after what happened.
At the same time a lot of this feels like it was undone by the treatment of myself as a source, by a journalist that I trusted for a publication that I really looked up to.
I’ve been fighting pretty hard with that sense of betrayal and what it even means to continue living after that.
 
Last edited:

Maeros

Member
Dec 21, 2017
348
To be fair, there’s not much to add to this complex issue. I think the bottom line is that Kotaku complied with Nathalie’s request to remove the requested section.

I find it hard to believe Cecilia would do something actively malicious, and from the sounds of things, was working entirely clean on this. It might have just been miscommunication or a misunderstanding. Either way, it seems to have been made right. Cecilia’s original report stands, though: Jeremy Soule is a scumbag. This will never change.
She yelled was it penetrative sex.... lack of emphathy???
 

Gush

Member
Nov 17, 2017
2,096
Nathalie's latest post on this topic:


There's a lot more to it, read the full article:
Thank you for posting this
 

bell_hooks

Banned
Nov 23, 2019
275
There is reason that some police questioning needs to be done in presence of psychologist. Maybe same should apply here, what Cecilia did was police work (albeit in order to break story not convict anyone) but she was not held to the same standards as police is (or should be).
The reply was especially insensitive, but maybe investigative journalist need to be like this to bring results. So they are deemed to be insensitive.
And if they are touching such sensitive subject they should not be only one be in contact with victim (well the lawyer doesn't fucking count).
The interviewee needs to be in control of it's interview regarding being victim not other way around. If you are being questioned by very assertive type, it's easy to lose control and even agree to reveal something you didn't want, because you think they will help you. If situation is uncomfortable, you just want it to be over and don't question whether you said too much.
The trained professional should be one pushing victim's agenda, and making sure they control things, question things. After all journalist is part of news site that will benefit financially from this.
There is inherent problem in journalism if D'Anastasio defense is that it was "by the book." Hostile takovers, Corporation paying hush money, tax evasion are all By the book, legal things. It doesn't make it right.

It's like in Cool hand Luke:


Your heart may be in good place Cecilia and we love your work, but profesional standards only apply on your resume. Don't defend your standards, get better standards.
 

Pixieking

Member
Oct 25, 2017
5,722
There is reason that some police questioning needs to be done in presence of psychologist. Maybe same should apply here, what Cecilia did was police work (albeit in order to break story not convict anyone) but she was not held to the same standards as police is (or should be).
The reply was especially insensitive, but maybe investigative journalist need to be like this to bring results. So they are deemed to be insensitive.
And if they are touching such sensitive subject they should not be only one be in contact with victim (well the lawyer doesn't fucking count).
The thing is, actual news media has been doing this kind of work for centuries, and they haven't needed anyone else to step in. Actual journalists have been talking to victims of (and relations of those killed in) terrorist attacks and domestic abuse; they've talked to grieving parents of dead children, and parents who have had children kidnapped; they've talked to survivors of mass murderers and serial rapists. Jodi Kantor, Megan Twohey and Ronan Farrow have all talked to women who have been sexually assaulted by Weinstein, and, as far as I'm aware, no extra precautions (like having a psychologist on hand) were taken by them.

It's a pretty damning indictment of gaming media that you're proposing special rules in order to protect victims of sexual assault from the journalists in gaming media.
 
Last edited:

bell_hooks

Banned
Nov 23, 2019
275
Because their statements are admissible in court?
Well Kotaku did take lawyer advice in questioning so they could defend themselves in potential lawsuit for defamation. So why journalists interview has to be okayed by lawyer and not someone who can fucking help the victim?

The thing is, actual news media has been doing this kind of work for centuries, and they haven't needed anyone else to step in. Actual journalists have been talking to victims of (and relations of those killed in) terrorist attacks and domestic abuse; they've talked to grieving parents of dead children, and parents who have had children kidnapped; they've talked to survivors of mass murderers and serial rapists. Jodi Kantor, Megan Twohey and Ronan Farrow have all talked to women who have been sexually assaulted by Weinstein, and, as far as I'm aware, no extra precautions (like having a psychologist on hand) were taken by them.

It's a pretty damning indictment of gaming media that you're proposing special rules in order to protect victims of sexual assault from the journalists in gaming media.
I'm not calling for regulation (I'm not from US so your law doesn't mean anything to me), I'm calling for better standards within news outlets who as the story clearly tells are not equip to deal with them. You are right that there are journalists who do not need this kind of help to get it right. But how do you protect interviewee from poeple who do not get it right? Stuff like organised HR seminars for employees do nothing.
Lawhead in her latest response suggest that some of her and other victim's requests were ignored and that was the problem. But if editor and everyone in the company only contact the victim through interviewer, maybe they should have second opinion on the matter to know no requests were omitted. And victim may not want to contact lawyer for that, as he could scare them away and bully into agreeing to stuff, that's what lawyers do.
 

Pixieking

Member
Oct 25, 2017
5,722
I'm not calling for regulation (I'm not from US so your law doesn't mean anything to me),
Nor am I, and also I'm from the UK. :)

I'm calling for better standards within news outlets who as the story clearly tells are not equip to deal with them. You are right that there are journalists who do not need this kind of help to get it right. But how do you protect interviewee from poeple who do not get it right?
Generally speaking, most people who would do this kind of investigative journalism work would have either a journalism degree, or belong to the Society of Professional Journalists, if not both. This would mean that the reporter would have experience and/or education that would allow them to deal with victims in a professional and empathetic manner. There would also be (I believe, but willing to be corrected) some degree of influence from editors who would know not to put a certain "type" of reporter on a story such as this, because of the delicacy involved in handling victims respectfully. So "better standards" exist, and it seems like Kotaku and/or Cecilia D’Anastasio cocked-up here.

I should also state here that I did a quick Google for Cecilia D’Anastasio and cannot tell if she's a member of the SPJ or if she did a journalism degree, so whilst what I say above is generally speaking, it is not foolproof, and only goes so far.

Relatedly, it's interesting reading G/O Media's Editorial Policy alongside The Washington Post's Policies and Standards. The latter feels far more rigorous and defined than the former (especially in dealing with sources), and I'd feel far more confident in how a WaPo reporter talked to me than a Kotaku one.
 

Eighthours

Banned
Dec 5, 2017
103
Kotaku did nothing wrong here at all. Their audit trail checks out much better than Natalie's - they have recordings that back up their version of events, while Natalie has bizarre stuff like 'I retweeted the article without even reading it' and not mentioning that she originally thanked Cecilia for the article. While she showed the first email exchange with Cecilia, she didn't show the follow-ups that Cecilia described. This open letter seems misguided when it comes to going after Cecilia yet again, based on what we know happened.
 

deepFlaw

Member
Oct 25, 2017
19,715
Kotaku did nothing wrong here at all. Their audit trail checks out much better than Natalie's - they have recordings that back up their version of events, while Natalie has bizarre stuff like 'I retweeted the article without even reading it' and not mentioning that she originally thanked Cecilia for the article. While she showed the first email exchange with Cecilia, she didn't show the follow-ups that Cecilia described. This open letter seems misguided when it comes to going after Cecilia yet again, based on what we know happened.
Sharing the article thinking it was fair to her while not being up for/able to read it is hardly bizarre. She should have asked someone else to check it for her, probably, but it’s hardly surprising that she wouldn’t be able to stomach reading it. And as she specifically points out in this latest post, since this was post-publishing they wouldn’t have edited it even if she’d had someone check for her.
 

makonero

Member
Oct 27, 2017
5,386
Sharing the article thinking it was fair to her while not being up for/able to read it is hardly bizarre. She should have asked someone else to check it for her, probably, but it’s hardly surprising that she wouldn’t be able to stomach reading it. And as she specifically points out in this latest post, since this was post-publishing they wouldn’t have edited it even if she’d had someone check for her.
She was given the chance to review it before publishing. She could have had someone read it then and make sure that anything she didn't want shared was taken out.
 

bell_hooks

Banned
Nov 23, 2019
275
Generally speaking, most people who would do this kind of investigative journalism work would have either a journalism degree, or belong to the Society of Professional Journalists, if not both. This would mean that the reporter would have experience and/or education that would allow them to deal with victims in a professional and empathetic manner. There would also be (I believe, but willing to be corrected) some degree of influence from editors who would know not to put a certain "type" of reporter on a story such as this, because of the delicacy involved in handling victims respectfully. So "better standards" exist, and it seems like Kotaku and/or Cecilia D’Anastasio cocked-up here.

I should also state here that I did a quick Google for Cecilia D’Anastasio and cannot tell if she's a member of the SPJ or if she did a journalism degree, so whilst what I say above is generally speaking, it is not foolproof, and only goes so far.

Relatedly, it's interesting reading G/O Media's Editorial Policy alongside The Washington Post's Policies and Standards. The latter feels far more rigorous and defined than the former (especially in dealing with sources), and I'd feel far more confident in how a WaPo reporter talked to me than a Kotaku one.
[/QUOTE]

Thanks for explanation. I think you are right that it would be usually editor's job to know whether some people should be assigned to delicate subjects like this.
Cecilia D’Anastasio Linkedin suggests she had some writing expierience but degree in langague and philosophy , she also had third place in some contest organised by SPJ so she may be a member.
 

weekev

Is this a test?
Member
Oct 25, 2017
5,266
So, Nathalie just tweeted a thread about the subject:



Seems like it's a pattern with D'Anastasio.
Yeah, I gave Cecile the benefit of the doubt the first time. However this is beginning to look like exploitation of victims to get clicks rather than journalistic integrity to get the story out about abusers and the impact it's had on these women's lives.

Pretty disgusting if true.
 
Jun 23, 2019
5,838
Yeah, I gave Cecile the benefit of the doubt the first time. However this is beginning to look like exploitation of victims to get clicks rather than journalistic integrity to get the story out about abusers and the impact it's had on these women's lives.

Pretty disgusting if true.
I thought it came down to Cecilia and Kotaku having on record them talking about and getting Nathalie’s permission to post the story in the first place. Does she have proof of Cecilia being a repeat offender? If she does, that’s a different story and someone is about to get that ass lit up.
 

weekev

Is this a test?
Member
Oct 25, 2017
5,266
Didnt they also take forever to take down those pictures of that animated porn of video game sprites that had used characters that were depicted as minors in that one article?
Seriously? Fuck Kotaku, really hope the remaining good journalists that are there like Jason, jump ship to a company with a bit more integrity.
 

Firima

Member
Oct 27, 2017
3,300
You can take the Kotaku out of the Gawker, but you can't take the Gawker out of the Kotaku.
 

AgeEighty

Member
Oct 25, 2017
1,991
I thought it came down to Cecilia and Kotaku having on record them talking about and getting Nathalie’s permission to post the story in the first place. Does she have proof of Cecilia being a repeat offender? If she does, that’s a different story and someone is about to get that ass lit up.
Yeah, that thread says "I just got word that she's done this before" but it doesn't say where or when or provide any links, unless I missed something. Meanwhile Kotaku has receipts on all the opportunities Nathalie had to intervene in this article's publication which she passed up.

Also Cecilia works for Wired now.
 

chrominance

Member
Oct 25, 2017
6,185
Yeah, that thread says "I just got word that she's done this before" but it doesn't say where or when or provide any links, unless I missed something. Meanwhile Kotaku has receipts on all the opportunities Nathalie had to intervene in this article's publication which she passed up.

Also Cecilia works for Wired now.
To be fair, what you want basically can't happen unless the other victims came forward to talk about how they were misrepresented and/or lied to. It's hard enough coming forward with your own story about sexual abuse/harassment; it's probably doubly so when the first time around you felt you got a raw deal, and have to speak up again just to set the record straight. If Lawhead is indeed getting comments from other people that they've been similarly screwed, she probably can't divulge that information herself without breaking people's trust, which is kind of the whole issue here.

Lawhead acknowledges that there were opportunities to review the material that she didn't take, but in addition to being potential trauma she may not have wanted to deal with given her trust in the author and publication at the time, no one really prepares you for being a whistleblower in a breaking story like this. I'm not saying she shouldn't have taken the opportunity to read the unpublished piece anyways, or have a trusted friend do it; I'm saying I understand why she might not have done so.
 
Oct 25, 2017
16,568
Yeah, that thread says "I just got word that she's done this before" but it doesn't say where or when or provide any links, unless I missed something. Meanwhile Kotaku has receipts on all the opportunities Nathalie had to intervene in this article's publication which she passed up.

Also Cecilia works for Wired now.
burden of proof should work in the opposite direction
 
Oct 27, 2017
26,358
To be fair, what you want basically can't happen unless the other victims came forward to talk about how they were misrepresented and/or lied to. It's hard enough coming forward with your own story about sexual abuse/harassment; it's probably doubly so when the first time around you felt you got a raw deal, and have to speak up again just to set the record straight. If Lawhead is indeed getting comments from other people that they've been similarly screwed, she probably can't divulge that information herself without breaking people's trust, which is kind of the whole issue here.
But at the same time, we're essentially saying we should take her word as truth just because? Especially when this thread shows that what she claims happens with regards to the journalist in question isn't exactly what happened

burden of proof should work in the opposite direction
You mean the burden of proof should be on the journalist?
 

chrominance

Member
Oct 25, 2017
6,185
But at the same time, we're essentially saying we should take her word as truth just because? Especially when this thread shows that what she claims happens with regards to the journalist in question isn't exactly what happened
No, I'm not saying we should take her word as truth just because.

Unfortunately this might be one of those cases where we just can't know the truth unless someone else steps forward. Personally I don't really know what to think; I tend to trust victims in all this, but now we're getting into hearsay. There's a reason why hearsay is generally inadmissible as evidence except in specific instances.

None of that makes me less sympathetic to Lawhead, though. It just means I don't and maybe can't know all the facts, and have to hedge my comments and stance accordingly. Ultimately it's not like I have the power or position to make summary judgements anyway; we're all basically just bystanders.
 
Last edited:

Igor

Member
Oct 31, 2017
950
I don't know.

One side is that I am struggling a little with the fact that Lawhead was offered to read the article before posting and she did not take it... only to call D'Anastasio unprofessional. As a survivor myself I understand very well that this is very traumatic stuff to read but I think it's extremely irresponsible. It would save her so much grief - knowing that this information is going to be shared with the public. We all process the trauma differently but relinquishing that control over her part of the story was a mistake.

On the other - D'Anastasio's email response as well as the statement appear rather dishonest. The language is very off hand, and the email comes across as little shaky on the facts. The statement she's given also is a little contrived and avoidant about the extent of how clear this process was. In the end of the day - if it really was just a misunderstanding then it was HER job to make sure that there are no gaps in communication. It does not appear to be handled well by her at all.
 

rras1994

Member
Nov 4, 2017
5,094
I don't know.

One side is that I am struggling a little with the fact that Lawhead was offered to read the article before posting and she did not take it... only to call D'Anastasio unprofessional. As a survivor myself I understand very well that this is very traumatic stuff to read but I think it's extremely irresponsible. It would save her so much grief - knowing that this information is going to be shared with the public. We all process the trauma differently but relinquishing that control over her part of the story was a mistake.

On the other - D'Anastasio's email response as well as the statement appear rather dishonest. The language is very off hand, and the email comes across as little shaky on the facts. The statement she's given also is a little contrived and avoidant about the extent of how clear this process was. In the end of the day - if it really was just a misunderstanding then it was HER job to make sure that there are no gaps in communication. It does not appear to be handled well by her at all.
Why would she feel like she need to read the story when she made it clear she didn't want the assault description in the article, Cecilia assured her it wouldn't be and at that the interview going over that part was made to seem that it was after the article was already written and ready to be published and that it was only needed for legal reasons? Why would Nathalie ever think from that it was going to be included in the article and she would need to check the article for that to not be there? Cecilia admits on her twitlog that she agreed she wouldn't publish those details and that Nathalie didn't want them published:
She did not want gratuitous details of her assault published, and I said that we would not publish anything gratuitous.
https://www.twitlonger.com/show/n_1sr4erf?new_post=true

So it's not a communication issue. Cecelia knew she agreed not to do that and put it out anyway. Quite frankly it sounds like she was trying to skate by on the technicality of what counts a s "gratious". And that's not even getting into how Cecilia treated her other sources.
 

Weltall Zero

Game Developer
Verified
Oct 26, 2017
17,369
Madrid
I mean, it's not like "we don't ever edit articles after publishing even to protect rape victims" was ever anything other than an obvious, skyscraper-high pile of bullshit, but yeah, it's always good to have the trivial counterexamples at hand to prove it.

Edit: Sorry, I missed that the tweet lays the blame on Kotaku. I do not agree with that at all; it's entirely on Cecilia.
 
Last edited:

Igor

Member
Oct 31, 2017
950
Why would she feel like she need to read the story when she made it clear she didn't want the assault description in the article, Cecilia assured her it wouldn't be and at that the interview going over that part was made to seem that it was after the article was already written and ready to be published and that it was only needed for legal reasons? Why would Nathalie ever think from that it was going to be included in the article and she would need to check the article for that to not be there? Cecilia admits on her twitlog that she agreed she wouldn't publish those details and that Nathalie didn't want them published:

https://www.twitlonger.com/show/n_1sr4erf?new_post=true

So it's not a communication issue. Cecelia knew she agreed not to do that and put it out anyway. Quite frankly it sounds like she was trying to skate by on the technicality of what counts a s "gratious". And that's not even getting into how Cecilia treated her other sources.
For a variety of reasons, mostly that trust or not, it is something that inadvertently you are putting out there on the web with your name attached to it. She is a source for the story. And let us be a little wary of quality of journalism in gaming - I understand very well that part of the problem is feeling that her trust has been breached and that she should absolutely not be in this position, and what ramifications this will have on any of the future survivors potentially; however you just need to take precautions in order not to be taken advantage of. To have proof-read the article before it was published is such a precaution.

Again, she claims for D'Anastasio to include something off the record while Totilo intervenes and adds a note that he is removing these parts despite the fact they claim to have these parts from "on the record" phone calls.

It is exactly the same line I was going to quote earlier because I also think it was problematic - choice of word "gratuitous" is what came as a little dishonest for me as it can mean different things for different people. It is the journalists job as someone using the source for the story to make sure that the person they are getting information from is in a very clear position of what the "T&Cs" are. The statement did not assure me that she did that well.
 

rras1994

Member
Nov 4, 2017
5,094
For a variety of reasons, mostly that trust or not, it is something that inadvertently you are putting out there on the web with your name attached to it. She is a source for the story. And let us be a little wary of quality of journalism in gaming - I understand very well that part of the problem is feeling that her trust has been breached and that she should absolutely not be in this position, and what ramifications this will have on any of the future survivors potentially; however you just need to take precautions in order not to be taken advantage of. To have proof-read the article before it was published is such a precaution.

Again, she claims for D'Anastasio to include something off the record while Totilo intervenes and adds a note that he is removing these parts despite the fact they claim to have these parts from "on the record" phone calls.

It is exactly the same line I was going to quote earlier because I also think it was problematic - choice of word "gratuitous" is what came as a little dishonest for me as it can mean different things for different people. It is the journalists job as someone using the source for the story to make sure that the person they are getting information from is in a very clear position of what the "T&Cs" are. The statement did not assure me that she did that well.
For your first paragraph, I don't really think it's fair to have to assume that the journalist who claimed they were going to use your story to hold your accuser accountable is going to screw you over. If Nathalie thought that and in order to take actions against she likely wouldn't have shared the story with said journalist to begin with.

For your second point, from Nathalie's emails with Totilo, Totilo didn't actually hear the tapes and relied on what Cecilia said they said, and Nathalie didn't get to see them at all. That all sounds sus to me. It also doesn't make sense that Cecilia had to have a second interview with a lawyer present to make sure what Nathalie said was legally rape if Nathalie already gave deatils about the asault in the first interview which she was able to use in the article because if she had that, she could have just shown the first interview which was recorded to give to the lawyer. The whole point of the second interview is that Nathalie didn't give enough details about her assault for them to refer to it as rape in the article without Nathalie expanding on it.

I think we are mainly in agreement that Cecilia is sketchy af but I just wanted to outline why I'm in disagreement with some of your points. I find it hard to believe that Cecilia wasn't aware that her writing wasn't what the victim wanted but that she going for the shock factor
 

AgeEighty

Member
Oct 25, 2017
1,991
To be fair, what you want basically can't happen unless the other victims came forward to talk about how they were misrepresented and/or lied to. It's hard enough coming forward with your own story about sexual abuse/harassment; it's probably doubly so when the first time around you felt you got a raw deal, and have to speak up again just to set the record straight. If Lawhead is indeed getting comments from other people that they've been similarly screwed, she probably can't divulge that information herself without breaking people's trust, which is kind of the whole issue here.

Lawhead acknowledges that there were opportunities to review the material that she didn't take, but in addition to being potential trauma she may not have wanted to deal with given her trust in the author and publication at the time, no one really prepares you for being a whistleblower in a breaking story like this. I'm not saying she shouldn't have taken the opportunity to read the unpublished piece anyways, or have a trusted friend do it; I'm saying I understand why she might not have done so.
Yeah no, that's a chain of hearsay that doesn't add up to "fuck Kotaku", especially when Nathalie could easily have had the article reviewed by someone else, and especially when the details in the story were pulled and the reason was because there was a suggestion Nathalie's details were inaccurate. I'm fully aware that she can't just go giving up the names of other people who've had this issue with Cecilia, but that's for them to come forward with if they choose, not her. Her just saying "I heard this has happened to other people too!" is not enough to treat as hard evidence that this is a pattern of Cecilia's.
 

Adam Tyner

Member
Oct 25, 2017
472
I mean, it's not like "we don't ever edit articles after publishing even to protect rape victims" was ever anything other than an obvious, skyscraper-high pile of bullshit, but yeah, it's always good to have the trivial counterexamples at hand to prove it.
You're mistakenly acting as if Cecilia's comments at the time represented Kotaku and their editorial policies. She wasn't even working for Kotaku by the time of that email exchange.

I've seen a number of Kotaku articles with updates after publication due to sensitivity, including under the current editor-in-chief, such as this one from 2013:

Update, 9/29:After the story was published, Dale stated that she wished it hadn't run, as it sparked numerous hateful messages sent in her direction. She asked for the story to be pulled, and while Kotaku has a policy against pulling articles, we've updated it as described in the Editor's Note below to diminish the harassment sent her way.

Editor's Note: While we believe that it is important to report about issues of discrimination in gaming, we have decided not to link to Dale's Twitter account directly to diminish the amount of harassment she's received since the publication of this story. We encourage all readers, even those who disagree with the issues at hand, to remember that there are human beings on the other end of your online comments. Thank you to those who have used this story for measured, sensible discussion. -Stephen Totilo, Editor-in-Chief, Kotaku.com
 

chrominance

Member
Oct 25, 2017
6,185
Yeah no, that's a chain of hearsay that doesn't add up to "fuck Kotaku", especially when Nathalie could easily have had the article reviewed by someone else, and especially when the details in the story were pulled and the reason was because there was a suggestion Nathalie's details were inaccurate. I'm fully aware that she can't just go giving up the names of other people who've had this issue with Cecilia, but that's for them to come forward with if they choose, not her. Her just saying "I heard this has happened to other people too!" is not enough to treat as hard evidence that this is a pattern of Cecilia's.
Right, and if you'll notice I never said "fuck Kotaku." Though you might not be talking to me specifically at this point, not sure.

I did edit a previous post above to make clear that I think there might not be a way to corroborate Lawhead's allegations, for better or for worse. My curt "No." might have been too much so, but it was not intended as a "fuck Kotaku" kind of statement.
 

Weltall Zero

Game Developer
Verified
Oct 26, 2017
17,369
Madrid
You're mistakenly acting as if Cecilia's comments at the time represented Kotaku and their editorial policies. She wasn't even working for Kotaku by the time of that email exchange.

I've seen a number of Kotaku articles with updates after publication due to sensitivity, including under the current editor-in-chief, such as this one from 2013:
I'm not doing such a thing; I'm pointing out that what Cecilia said was bullshit. Whether she actually believed this to be Kotaku policy or not is an entirely different matter.