Who Are Your Nameless Yet Trusted Sources?
With all the drama and rumours floating around about this whole Infinity Ward/Activision story I’ve found one my my pet peeves is flaring up again; journalists basing entire articles on completely anonymous sources. It’s one of the basics of journalism that (and I’m paraphrasing) it’s not news until somebody puts their name on the line. The problem with anonymous tips is that they could be fabricated, biased and can’t be backed up.
Let’s take industry respected (and personal favourite site of mine) Gamasutra‘s “News” article that was posted today. That post updates the story broken by G4TV after they got a tip-off from an unnamed “source close to [Infinity Ward]“. Gamasutra writes:
Only top brass at Infinity Ward and Activision are privy to all the facts about the their contract. But numerous sources close to the situation have told Gamasutra there’s been tension between Activision leadership and ousted Infinity Ward co-founders Jason West and Vince Zampella for some months.
So only the people at the top know all the facts, yet some other people who may not know any facts are saying there’s tension. I’m not disputing that this isn’t the case, but “somebody said so” doesn’t make it true. The article continues (emphasis mine).
…some sources have told us [West and Zampella] first fell out of favor with bombastic Activision CEO Bobby Kotick when they refused to allow Activision to check up on Modern Warfare 2 milestones.
Numerous sources with knowledge of the situation have speculated to Gamasutra…
Another source suggests West and Zampella could have demanded a larger share of profits in return for developing Modern Warfare 3…
Some media reports have inaccurately conflated this week’s situation with outstanding royalties from Activision to Infinity Ward. But sources confirm to Gamasutra that Activision routinely pays royalties at the end of the quarter…
Those “media reports” can be tracked back to this one up on Binge Gamer and re-reported on places like Joystiq, Eurogamer etc. Perhaps it’s inaccurate because BG got their information from anonymous sources “close to the situation”. Gamasutra continues:
The major issue is that Activision’s hands are tied by the contract, sources say — and that may be the root of the “insubordination” allegation against Infinity Ward’s leaders.
Another source with knowledge of the situation tells Gamasutra that although Infinity Ward is only about 75 developers strong, Activision brass demanded layoffs at the studio…
If you chatted to a couple of people who chatted to a guy who works in the office across the road from Infinity Ward, please just tell us that. There is no way you can completely trust the word of somebody who doesn’t want you to post their name, let alone base an entire 700 word article on only nameless quotes. If you really have no choice then at least report it for what it is; a rumour.
Still, there’s one part I agree with Gamasutra on: “rumors and speculation will run rampant”.
Editorial, Rant Tags: Activision, Anon, gamasutra, Infinity Ward
Next: Haiku Impressions: Fret Nice
Previous: [NGR] British Nation Sickened by PS3 Breakdowns
This situation is a great source for the blogs to pump out meaningless articles… first the initial breaking story post… then the anonymous source confirming the speculation… then an analysis of the situation by the blogger… then confirmation of the analysis… then finally an analysis/opinion piece from a named employee who was affected by the situation…
and then it begins again the next day… not to mention the revisited article that will come out a month from now… and the annoying speculation that takes place on the podcasts…
Im inclined to make a deepthroat double entendre… but nothing comes to mind…
I know this is just a rant but… I’ve always been told that when it says “a source close to IW” it means “someone at IW (possibly even the big beasts) but they only told us on condition of annonymity”. T
hat’s how it works in politics, a way to leak something without getting into trouble even though everyone knows it was you or your people that leaked it. It’s a good system.
The way it’s handled in journalism classes is that anonymous sources should be the last resort, and you should try to get them on the record, but in rare occasions where their job would be at risk (more for whistle-blower situations than corporate shake ups like this) it’s OK.
The rash of unnamed sources on this story takes this a little too far, and hopefully someone will say something more concrete soon and straighten it out.
@Threetem: The problem is that if everyone is an anonymous source, how can you verify the truth? What weight can be put on a story when nobody wants to be connected to it?
What if (hypothetically) IW employees, “the multiple sources”, were saying all of this because their boss just got fired and wanted to to damage the perception of Activision, or even its stock price?
So Activision lose $x million, loses investor confidence and there’s nobody to blame or prosecute because the IW employees agreed to speak anonymously.
All because somebody based a story on an unnamed source.
(Not that I think that is what is going on here, just using it as an example).
Ugh, what is that a picture of?
I don’t think its fair to blame them on this particular instance, as if the guy (presumably a dev) was named, he’d be instantly let go, no doubt about it. They’re just making sure he doesn’t lose his job. I don’t see a problem with that.