Gencon News and Updates Thread (with links!)

[Umbran]

I am not required to qualify how ICv2 reports their data...

Required? No.

But it is a good day when people do more than what is required - when they do the smart, right thing to do because it is the smart, right thing to do, rather than because it is "required" of them.

 

[talien]

ICv2 covers a very limited view of the market as a whole (it restricts itself to hobby retailers alone, and relies solely on interviews with hobby retail owners rather than hard data). You know this, undoubtedly, as you reported on it. The tag line "Pathfinder outsells D&D" does not follow from the ICv2 report; it gives the impression that Pathfinder is outselling D&D without qualification, which is not the case (as far as any of us know). It is irresponsible reporting to not disclaim the mention of the ICv2 report with a note that reads something along the lines of "Note: ICv2 covers a very limited segment of the market. Pathfinder might not actually be outselling D&D."

In the same way that you wouldn't write an article entitled "Burger King Outsells McDonald's" using only data from a single midwest town (and then neglect to mention to your readers that you're only using data from a single midwest town), you should not write an article on Pathfinder outselling D&D that fails to mention online retailers, major bookselling chains, big box stores like Target and Walmart, direct sales, online subscriptions, or hobby retailers who were not interviewed by ICv2.

So my question is: why did you decide not to disclaim the report? It's clear that good journalism dictates that you ought to, and it's a pretty awful excuse to put the onus on your reader of visiting another website in order to find information that you ought to mention in your own report. It's unquestionable that the limitations of the ICv2 report are significant enough to receive mention in your article; they undermine the entire headline. So I'm forced to one of two conclusions: you either honestly think that the ICv2 report doesn't need to be disclaimed (which says unflattering things about your journalism), or you were purposefully writing the report in such a way as to favor Pathfinder due to a personal bias (which says very unflattering things about your journalism).

It is a simple matter to fix this: go back and edit your article. The disclaimer on the ICv2 report should be in there.

You do realize that the ENnies have also been criticized in the past. Should I put the same qualifications in the article? Why aren't you pointing that out as well? You can easily argue that just because Pathfinder won ENnies over D&D in every category, that doesn't mean Pathfinder "beat" D&D either.

Your criticism's validity hinges on the assumption that for every time I post a source, I must point out the legitimacy of said source. Whenever I quote someone, should I explain every criticism? If I quote you in an article, should I post comments from this same thread that criticize you?

I agree with you -- ICv2's claims aren't necessarily quantifiable. You are welcome to dispute this source. I am not going to edit every article to list every contrary claim about every source. To do so would require me to list criticism of EVERY source, when simply linking to them is sufficient. I like to think my readers are intelligent enough to make their own decisions. I drew a parallel between two pieces of data when I wrote that article. Pointing out that you think one (and curiously only one, not two) of those data sources isn't particularly valid is quite fair.

However, I will not be bullied into editing the article due to your spurious claims of my journalistic integrity. What's more ridiculous is that I am an avid 4th Edition player, as several other articles in this very same thread have pointed out. I don't even play Pathfinder - I do like the Golarion setting though!

And of course, you can always just post a comment to the article clarifying your concerns.

 

[talien]

More news (but by all means, check my sources before you believe anything I write!):

Gary Gygax movie on the horizon - National RPG | Examiner.com

 

[El Mahdi]

...However, I will not be bullied into editing the article due to your spurious claims of my journalistic integrity...

In my experience, such displays of intense defensiveness and indignity usually mean there's a kernel of truth in the observation. Especially when there is no "bullying" taking place.

As far as intimating that you might have an ulterior motive based on a bias towards Pathfinder...Yes, Dannager was off base. Though not completely his fault, it is typical for Dannager and consistent with his obvious bias. Go over Dannager's past posts and you can see for yourself. But as the results and accuracy of your reporting is your responsibility, I feel his response was understandable and not requiring an apology. Whether you consider it fair or not, the bar for accuracy and non-bias is much higher for your medium and profession, than it is for Dannager's posts. The weight of responsibility lies with you, not him (or at least to very different degrees).

As to the articles themselves:

ICv2 doesn't make any claims or draws any conclusions as to what the data means. They simply post the "publishing" information for the quarter. I don't see anything wrong with their article, information, or integrity.

Technically though, your article's title is not accurate. "Paizo Publishing beats Wizards of the Coast in sales and Ennies" should have been "Pathfinder publishing beats D&D publishing in sales and Ennies". You compared Paizo publishing to Wizards of the Coast, and not to D&D. Though we don't have numbers, it's probably a safe bet that since WotC is much more than D&D, Paizo is likely not outselling "Wizards of the Coast". More likely is that WotC brings in revenue orders of magnitude larger than Paizo...

Then in the article you say: "Pathfinder is now outselling Dungeons & Dragons".

You don't know if that statement is accurate or not either, therefore you shouldn't be making it. As said before, the only thing we know is that book sales of Pathfinder are greater than book sales of D&D. But ICv2 doesn't take into account DDI, of which they, you, and everybody except WotC have no numbers on. DDI is a part of "Dungeons & Dragons", and therefore is part of the above statement you made. And since you don't know what DDI brings in, you don't really know if Pathfinder is really outselling D&D.

Also, as a "journalist" you know that words matter. Stating it the way you did: "Pathfinder is now outselling Dungeons & Dragons" - creates the picture that Pathfinder has been out to catch D&D, finally has, and implies that this may be the new status quo. More accurately and without "spin", you should have said: "Pathfinder books are currently outselling Dungeons & Dragons books" or "Pathfinder books outsold Dungeons & Dragons books during the last quarter".

...Your criticism's validity hinges on the assumption that for every time I post a source, I must point out the legitimacy of said source. Whenever I quote someone, should I explain every criticism?...

YES and YES.

When presenting information from a source that may or may not be accurate - or only tells part of the story - then YES, you absolutely should qualify it in your reporting. And if the source is unimpeachable, then you should show why that is true also. Not being complete, accurate, and showing all sides of an issue, is quite normally going to raise questions of bias. The perception of bias on the part of your readers is not the fault of your readers...it's wholly yours alone. Get angry and defensive about that all you want, rail to the sky about it's unfairness, but it won't change a thing: the accuracy of your reporting and it's reception by your readers is completely your responsibility.

But, I don't think this is about whether ICv2 is accurate or not. I think it's more important whether or not you accurately represented the ICv2 report - and I don't believe you did.

Now in all fairness, your level of accuracy (or inaccuracy) is no greater or less than what's common in reporting today - for both mainstream journalism and internet journalism. Whether that signifies a lack of journalistic integrity or not is something that's highly subjective. Though personally, I think it's normal for the day...but I also think that's a damn shame. Aiming to emulate the most common denominator isn't necessarily bad, but in my opinion is far from laudatory. Reporting should be about the facts and accuracy, and then within that framework be entertaining - but "Reporting" is not "Creative Writing". Save the spin and creative writing for editiorials and blogs.

All in all, I find your articles okay. You lack a bit of attention to detail, and the issues discussed above seem relatively common in your reporting also - but as I said before, that seems par for the course as pertains to todays reporting standards. If you want to be just Okay, that's fine and completely your choice. But if you want to be considered "Good", you may want to consider some of what's been said in this thread.


P.S.: I think Paul Giamatti would be perfect for the Gary Gygax movie also.

 

[talien]

In my experience, such displays of intense defensiveness and indignity usually mean there's a kernel of truth in the observation. Especially when there is no "bullying" taking place.

It's hard to refute "you disagree with the other guy so that must make you guilty." So I won't try.

As far as intimating that you might have an ulterior motive based on a bias towards Pathfinder...Yes, Dannager was off base. Though not completely his fault, it is typical for Dannager and consistent with his obvious bias. Go over Dannager's past posts and you can see for yourself. But as the results and accuracy of your reporting is your responsibility, I feel his response was understandable and not requiring an apology. Whether you consider it fair or not, the bar for accuracy and non-bias is much higher for your medium and profession, than it is for Dannager's posts. The weight of responsibility lies with you, not him (or at least to very different degrees).

I find it ironic that I should "go over Dannager's past posts and see for myself" about his bias but asking anyone to use the ICv2 links as evidence of how ICv2 works is unreasonable. Or to put it another way, when someone with a bias on a thread attacks me I should do my research on them, but it's unreasonable to assume someone reading my article should do their own research. This doesn't seem to match up to me.

Technically though, your article's title is not accurate. "Paizo Publishing beats Wizards of the Coast in sales and Ennies" should have been "Pathfinder publishing beats D&D publishing in sales and Ennies".

I agree, the title could have been worded better. I wrote it fast from a hotel room with a cold.

Get angry and defensive about that all you want, rail to the sky about it's unfairness, but it won't change a thing: the accuracy of your reporting and it's reception by your readers is completely your responsibility.

I'm astonished by claims of me being angry about this topic. Seriously, I just posted links, people (apparently with their own known biases) attacked me for it. I refused to be bullied. That makes me angry? I shudder to think the reaction if I actually WAS angry.

Now in all fairness, your level of accuracy (or inaccuracy) is no greater or less than what's common in reporting today - for both mainstream journalism and internet journalism. Whether that signifies a lack of journalistic integrity or not is something that's highly subjective. Though personally, I think it's normal for the day...but I also think that's a damn shame. Aiming to emulate the most common denominator isn't necessarily bad, but in my opinion is far from laudatory. Reporting should be about the facts and accuracy, and then within that framework be entertaining - but "Reporting" is not "Creative Writing". Save the spin and creative writing for editiorials and blogs.

Where this assumption that I am some newspaper-style journalist comes from is beyond me. Here's what Examiner promises: "Examiners come from all walks of life and contribute original content to entertain, inform, and inspire their readers. They are credible, passionate and influential because of their knowledge of a particular topic." That's it. At best -- and seriously, this is giving me way too much credit -- I write opinionated editorials. There's no way we could be journalistically neutral and "entertain" and "inspire" our readers as well.

I believe that at this point the thread has violated several ENworld posting rules, so I'm out of this thread before it gets locked down.

 

[Dannager]

You do realize that the ENnies have also been criticized in the past. Should I put the same qualifications in the article?

If those criticisms have merit that would change the tone or message of your reporting if noted, yes.

If a full disclosure would necessitate changing your headline or article in a substantive way, your headline and article probably need to be changed.

Why aren't you pointing that out as well? You can easily argue that just because Pathfinder won ENnies over D&D in every category, that doesn't mean Pathfinder "beat" D&D either.

I'm not sure what you're talking about here. I have no doubt that you're trying to find some hypocrisy in my criticism, but it doesn't really matter. The fact that I might be inconsistent (though I'd like to think that I'm not) doesn't change the fact that you're the one writing the article.

Your criticism's validity hinges on the assumption that for every time I post a source, I must point out the legitimacy of said source.

You have two options: either avoid citing sources, and let your statements stand on their own, or cite sources and suffer the burden of integrating those sources into your article in a responsible manner. The way in which you used the ICv2 report was not responsible. It ought to have been heavily disclaimed, by you. Linking to the report does not absolve you of the responsibility of accurate reporting.

To draw an analogy, this would be like a journalist using the headline "Apples Found to Carry Deadly Disease" and linking to an article which reports that a handful of apples from a particular farm in Pennsylvania were found to carry some toxic bacteria. If the journalist made it sound like the report applied to all apples everywhere, it really doesn't matter whether or not he links to the article.

You're the reporter. Maintaining the fidelity of the information you report is your responsibility. A reader shouldn't have to go poring over your sources to figure out what they really mean.

Whenever I quote someone, should I explain every criticism? If I quote you in an article, should I post comments from this same thread that criticize you?

If I said "Pathfinder is beating D&D in sales according to limited interviews with some hobby store owners!" and you cited me as having said that Pathfinder is beating D&D, it would be irresponsible of you to not mention that I was speaking in a very limited fashion.

I mean, if I were someone at ICv2, I would be upset with you for making it seem as though the scope of my report's conclusions were many times wider than in actuality.

I agree with you -- ICv2's claims aren't necessarily quantifiable.

That's not the point - ICv2 acknowledges the limits of their report, because that's how responsible reporting works.

You are welcome to dispute this source.

I'm not going to dispute the source because there's no problem with the source. The ICv2 report is fine, for what it is. It lists its findings and disclaims its own limitations. The problem is with you citing the ICv2 report as though it proves the thrust of your article. It doesn't.

I am not going to edit every article to list every contrary claim about every source.

Again, my problem is not with the source. My problem is with you trying to make the source article say something that it is not saying.

I don't think there's any doubt in anyone's mind that it's important to cite the ICv2 report's limitations. It's a very small, non-representative slice of a very large industry pie. You have made it sound as though it is an abundantly representative look at the entire industry.

However, I will not be bullied into editing the article due to your spurious claims of my journalistic integrity.

Your journalistic integrity speaks for itself. You can choose to bolster it, or not. Either way, there is no bullying going on. I am telling you that you are responsible for the accuracy of your own reporting, and pointing out that you are neglecting that responsibility for at least part of the article in question.

And of course, you can always just post a comment to the article clarifying your concerns.

Yes, I could. I wanted to impress upon you the need for a bit of touch-up work on the article first, and allow you the opportunity to correct it yourself.