I've been pretty vocal about my disdain for Kotaku around here. Last week was the first time I had visited the site since they published the Bethesda and Ubisoft don't talk to us anymore article last year.

The debacle over the No Man's Sky delay and leak of said delay pulled me back in, though, and Jason Schreier's comment explaining their process actually did a bit to sway my opinion on Kotaku in general.

I've still not really worked out where I stand on the whole thing, especially the publishing of pages of the leaked Fallout 4 script. In theory, I don't think that bothers me. It is technically newsworthy, if not actually surprising ("Developers of hit video game making sequel to hit video game!"). Their sanctimonious reaction to being blacklisted by Bethesda (and Ubisoft) still leaves a bad taste in my mouth, however.

I'm not sure how to feel about any of it, but more and more I feel like Kotaku is one of the only places (if not the only place) doing real video game journalism, such as it can be. They post bullshit crap list articles as often as anyone else, but at the end of the day, they've done more real coverage of the industry than just about every other video game site combined.

At the end of the day, I'm not sure how to balance those two sides in my mind.

Anyway. It's not relevant at all to this place, I suppose, but it was on my mind, and the conversation that may develop here is bound to be much more interesting and insightful than anything I could find on reddit or anywhere else I could have voiced my opinion.

P.S. The No Man's Sky subreddit is a a real shit show right now about the whole thing. It's simultaneously interesting, insightful, infuriating, and hilarious.

I've defended Kotaku here and elsewhere a few times over the past year or so - not because I read the site on a regular basis (I don't), and I agree that on any given day, the site is mostly fluff crap and cringeworthy "partner" posts that are really just half-assed attempts to make advertisements look like a news article... But, as I've said before, Jason Schreier is one of the only people in the industry that I consider to be a real journalist (Patrick Klepek is another), so even though Kotaku as a whole is not great, they do have some pieces worthy of respect, especially if it has Schreier's name attached (in my opinion at least).

^The Article never mentions the game pictured (Yooka-Laylee), and no one has even accused it of any malpractice. Click-bait at it's finest, and throws shade for no reason.

If there are people who you think can write well working at Kotaku, you should encourage them to find employment elsewhere.

- No text -

I think you're right, Speedracer. I used to not like them whatever, but I've changed my mind. Now I merely mostly dislike them.

Kotaku, remarkably, does appear to do actual games journalism. Other game news outlets do press releases or do interviews with the community managers of game companies or other fluff pieces. It's all complete fluff. Kotaku, very rarely, has actual investigative reporting, and reports on leaks, as opposed to most other large video game news sites or magazines. It's worth giving them credit for.

On the other hand, basically without fail, the rest of the stuff posted there is genuinely awful to the point where I'm borderline offended.

- No text -

Kotaku, remarkably, does appear to do actual games journalism.

Writing about an entertainment industry is not journalism.

- No text -

The majority of articles on these sites are garbage, meandering personal opinions edited into click bait to sell advertisements. Politics and Social Justice Warrioring intrude on a daily basis. If I wasn't so mindnumbingly board at work I would probably never venture to those sites at all, but as it is I go just to see the english equivalent of a motor vehicle accident.

I'd say the majority of what gets published on Kotaku is complete garbage. However, I feel the entirety of what gets published in every other gaming site is garbage, with the extremely rare examples here and there. It's not that there aren't good writers trying to do good work at other sites, it's just that every other major site is completely under the thump of videogame publishers and PR teams. They are the best kind of marketing, because people don't think of them as marketing. Publishers don't control the opinions that gaming sites express, but they do control when they express them, and what they express them about.

Kotaku, at the very least, is willing to break that cycle. Schrier and Klepek combined account for like 99% of the videogame articles that are actually worth reading over the past 2 years. Everything else is just click bait and/or part of a publisher's marketing agenda (again, with very few exceptions).

Sadly there aren't many games sites that don't post clickbait garbage any more. Even sadder is that most that don't have started selling premium membership in one form or another. Not sad because you have to pay, but sad because those seem to be the only options - clickbait, premium membership or death.

Kotaku is a strange one for me because the few good posts are almost completely drowned out by high-density garbage posts, much moreso than most other sites. They occupy the same brainspace for me as Buzzfeed's "Top 10 things your dog licked this morning" and it's no one's fault but their own that they have that reputation. That coupled with their caustic, holier-than-thou "journalistic integrity" attitude (which is completely undermined by 98% of their content) has left me pretty sour on them.

I appreciate their quality articles when they appear, but I'll wait for them to trickle down through my preferred sources/filters, rather than wading through their front page to find it.

Kotaku, remarkably, does appear to do actual games journalism.

Writing about an entertainment industry is not journalism.

So Rolling Stone and Variety do not employ journalists? I disagree. I think it's easy to write fluff nonsense like US Weekly or The Enquirer and pretend that's "news" but there are certainly proper journalists doing proper work at the more established and reputable entertainment industry magazines.

Wow, those are just awful. "Why there's a video game stuck to my ceiling" is probably the worst one imo - not only is it not remotely newsworthy, it's not even pretending to be about something that's remotely newsworthy. I bet the author's own parents don't care about why there's a game there.

- No text -

Kotaku, remarkably, does appear to do actual games journalism.

Writing about an entertainment industry is not journalism.

So Rolling Stone and Variety do not employ journalists? I disagree. I think it's easy to write fluff nonsense like US Weekly or The Enquirer and pretend that's "news" but there are certainly proper journalists doing proper work at the more established and reputable entertainment industry magazines.

If your piece is about an entailment industry or luxury, it's not journalism. If it's about something real or important, then yeah it might be journalism. I can think of one rather high profile piece of "journalism" in rolling stone regarding a certain University that was completely wrong and had to be retracted in its entirety. What does that say about their Standards for fact checking?

Can you define "real" in this context? Music is real. The people involved are real. The videogames industry and the people involved are real.

Also define important? What about stories about poor working conditions? Or so-called "corporate espionage"? Or consumer rights issues?

Journalism is the process of reporting and uncovering the truth. The subject matter is 100% irrelevant. Your assertion that articles in Rolling Stone aren't good has no baring on whether or not it is "journalism".

In terms of videogame media, I would argue that most videogame websites do not do journalism, nor do they try to. But there are exceptions, and most of the recent exceptions are published on Kotaku.

That coupled with their caustic, holier-than-thou "journalistic integrity" attitude (which is completely undermined by 98% of their content) has left me pretty sour on them.

This has always been my main problem with them. The whole point of proper journalism is for getting the information out, but Kotaku's attitude is usually more along the lines of "journalistic crusade!"

I totally get the value of their quality posts, I just wish it wasn't so self-righteous.

- No text -

...is how those fluff pieces are often as much as a week old. You'd think the site that posts leaks before anyone else would be more on the ball haha.

It all mostly boils down to "Look what I saw on Reddit."

Kotaku, remarkably, does appear to do actual games journalism.

Writing about an entertainment industry is not journalism.

This rule confounds me.

So, is any business reporting journalism, or are you just disqualifying business reporting on sectors that are not entertainment? Because it concerns people being entertained? What is a disqualifying level of entertainment? People like cars. Is reporting on automotive industry journalism? Yes to peterbuilt, but no to Ferrari? Ford, but only the Vans? Much of the tech sector is strongly related to entertainment. Nvidia reporting is not journalism? Intel? Where is this line drawn, and why?

Or is it just reporting on things with some element of artistic purpose? I doubt we'll find a brighter line distinguishing art form not-artbut lets set that centuries old intractable discussion aside since the articles in question were not at all about the artistic elements of the design. It was a process piece, so I'm assuming that was not the warrant for your rule.

Confounded. So, what *is* journalism, then?

- No text -

Doesn't sound very promising...

- No text -

Got you covered!

I think you're right, Speedracer. I used to not like them whatever, but I've changed my mind. Now I merely mostly dislike them.

Kotaku, remarkably, does appear to do actual games journalism. Other game news outlets do press releases or do interviews with the community managers of game companies or other fluff pieces. It's all complete fluff. Kotaku, very rarely, has actual investigative reporting, and reports on leaks, as opposed to most other large video game news sites or magazines. It's worth giving them credit for.

Investigative reporting?

Come on.

I'll call it that the first time a game reviewer files a FOIA request. Until then, you gotta be kidding me. All the entertainment press is promotion and criticism. There's basically no need and no role for "investigative reporting" except possibly on the business side and labor relations.

On the other hand, basically without fail, the rest of the stuff posted there is genuinely awful to the point where I'm borderline offended.

That's true.

Kotaku, remarkably, does appear to do actual games journalism.

Writing about an entertainment industry is not journalism.

Not investigative journalism, anyway. In the broader sense that includes criticism, commentary, punditry, then yes.

Can you define "real" in this context? Music is real. The people involved are real. The videogames industry and the people involved are real.

Also define important? What about stories about poor working conditions? Or so-called "corporate espionage"? Or consumer rights issues?

Journalists write about stuff like the Pentagon Papers and the like. Sure, music and and videogames are "real," but they are ultimately vanity. Cody's right.

Today I learned you can willfully ignore the actual definition of words if they don't fit your world-view.

Full Definition of journalism
1
a : the collection and editing of news for presentation through the media
b : the public press
c : an academic study concerned with the collection and editing of news or the management of a news medium
2
a : writing designed for publication in a newspaper or magazine
b : writing characterized by a direct presentation of facts or description of events without an attempt at interpretation
c : writing designed to appeal to current popular taste or public interest

Would you look at that? Turns out folks that write about video games can be journalists after all!

The majority of articles on these sites are garbage, meandering personal opinions edited into click bait to sell advertisements. Politics and Social Justice Warrioring intrude on a daily basis. If I wasn't so mindnumbingly board at work I would probably never venture to those sites at all, but as it is I go just to see the english equivalent of a motor vehicle accident.

Would you like some other websites to occupy your time? I've got suggestions.

Most dictionaries are descriptive, which means definitions can and do include things that are definitely false, but have been used before in shorthand, metaphor, or simply sloppy speech. In journalism, people are often referencing the specific academic study of journalism, and the nature of reporting on news in a way consistent with the philosophy of journalism. We're not talking about the basic reporting of news definition, and you know it.

Here's an example of another word's definition from American Heritage 5th edition.

shell  (shĕl)
Share:  
n.
1.
a. The usually hard outer covering that encases certain organisms, such as insects, turtles, and most mollusks.
b. A similar outer covering on a nut or seed.
c. A similar outer covering on certain eggs, such as those of birds and reptiles; an eggshell.
d. The material that constitutes such a covering.
2. Something resembling or having the form of a shell, especially:
a. An external, usually hard, protective or enclosing case or cover.
b. A framework or exterior, as of a building.
c. A thin layer of pastry.
d. The external part of the ear.
3. Nautical
a. The hull of a ship.
b. A light, long, narrow racing boat propelled by rowers.
4. A small glass for beer.
5.
a. An artillery projectile containing an explosive charge.
b. A metal or cardboard case containing the charge and primer for a piece of firearms ammunition, especially one also containing shot and fired from a shotgun.
6. An attitude or a manner adopted to mask one's true feelings or to protect one from perceived or real danger: Embarrassed, she withdrew into a shell.
7. Physics
a. A set of electron orbitals having nearly the same energy and sharing the same first quantum number.
b. Any of the stable states of other particles or collections of particles (such as the nucleons in an atomic nucleus) at a given energy or small range of energies.
8.
a. A usually sleeveless and collarless, typically knit blouse.
b. A thin, usually waterproof or windproof outer garment for the upper body.
9. Computers A program that works with the operating system as a command processor, used to enter commands and initiate their execution.
10. A company or corporation created by a second company or corporation for the purposes of facilitating a particular transaction, especially one that is intended to be concealed.
v. shelled, shell·ing, shells
v.tr.
1.
a. To remove the shell of; shuck: shell oysters.
b. To remove from a shell: shell peas.
2. To separate the kernels of (corn) from the cob.
3. To fire shells at; bombard.
4.
a. To defeat decisively.
b. Baseball To hit the pitches of (a pitcher) hard and with regularity: shelled the pitcher for eight runs in the first inning.
v.intr.
1. To shed or become free of a shell.
2. To look for or collect shells, as on a seashore: spent the day shelling on Cape Cod.
Phrasal Verb:
shell out Informal
To hand over; pay: had to shell out $500 in car repairs.
[Middle English, from Old English scell; see skel-1 in the Appendix of Indo-European roots.]

Look at that, your ear is a shell and so is your blouse! TIL. Except they're not. Shell has a particular definition in particular cases. In talking about wars, we're referring to artillery. In much the same way, distinguishing press release regurgitation from journalism, we're talking about a particular definition of journalism, and throwing a dictionary, unsourced and merely showing all definitions encountered by the editors, out there isn't helpful.

I think Cody's absurdly wrong here. I think he is so wrong I literally don't believe him and I posit that he's actually lying about his opinion. However, using a dictionary definition lends absolutely nothing to an argument's side unless it's literally an argument about linguistic semantics (eg. "Is it grammatical to use journalism to refer to the news industry at large in some cases?"). It's just completely inapplicable.

Look, in no way would I hire any of those people, even the apparently good ones, to do investigative journalism for even the most regional of newspapers, which already have a low standard to begin with, but in much the same way I can say I cooked myself food by throwing a TV dinner in the microwave, I think we can say they occasionally do investigative journalism. They reach out to people for information, look at multiple sources to try to get corroborating info, etc, to get hidden information to the public at large.

For example, I don't take that shit about Destiny as gospel, nor indeed do I believe most of the stuff they say in their big exposes. I don't trust anybody there enough to believe that they were sufficiently thorough in an investigation, but I cannot deny that one occurred, and in doing it, they uncovered what they perceive to be hidden information.

I think he is so wrong I literally don't believe him and I posit that he's actually lying about his opinion.

Edit: Not specifically about Cody. But its exactly how I feel when someone I know is smart but they say something that's almost painfully stupid.

All I would say is they are a relatively reliable source for information about Destiny.

If your piece is about an entailment industry or luxury, it's not journalism. If it's about something real or important, then yeah it might be journalism. I can think of one rather high profile piece of "journalism" in rolling stone regarding a certain University that was completely wrong and had to be retracted in its entirety. What does that say about their Standards for fact checking?

I don't know, maybe they should ask Brian Williams how he does it?

If we consider anything that NBC, CNN, FOX News, etc put out as journalism, then I don't see how Kotaku isn't journalism too.

...Destiny is rated T for Teen. Others have already addressed this point, obviously, but what the heck, Cody?!

*Heads off in search of a triple facepalm pic*

That sounds ominous. I'd like to avoid anything that I don't want my boss to accidentally see.

Confounded. So, what *is* journalism, then?

A journalist writes and reports NEWS. Things that MATTER. They could matter on a local, state, national, or international level, but they are important things that affect lives.

Entertainment almost by definition doesn't 'matter'. This doesn't mean that things that deal with the entertainment industry and not news. For instance, the recent pieces about the rampant pedophilia in Hollywood is journalism. Reporting on a leaked script or why so and so was fired is not.

EA spouse or the coverage of when the supreme court was deciding whether video games fall under the first amendment is the closest thing I can think of to an honest to goodness piece of journalism about video games.

Confounded. So, what *is* journalism, then?

A journalist write and reports NEWS. Things that MATTER. They could matter on a local, state, national, or international level, but they are important things that affect lives.

Entertainment almost by definition doesn't 'matter'. This doesn't mean that things that deal with the entertainment industry and not news. For instance, the recent pieces about the rampant pedophilia in Hollywood is journalism. Reporting on a leaked script or why so and so was fired is not.

EA spouse is the closest thing I can think of to an honest to goodness piece of journalism about video games.

Now that I understand how you're defining journalism, I can completely ignore this thread, because your reality and mine are far enough apart here that this is irrelevant to me. ;)

Confounded. So, what *is* journalism, then?

A journalist write and reports NEWS. Things that MATTER. They could matter on a local, state, national, or international level, but they are important things that affect lives.

Entertainment almost by definition doesn't 'matter'. This doesn't mean that things that deal with the entertainment industry and not news. For instance, the recent pieces about the rampant pedophilia in Hollywood is journalism. Reporting on a leaked script or why so and so was fired is not.

EA spouse is the closest thing I can think of to an honest to goodness piece of journalism about video games.

Now that I understand how you're defining journalism, I can completely ignore this thread, because your reality and mine are far enough apart here that this is irrelevant to me. ;)

I want to make it clear that I do not place journalism higher than other writing in terms of value. For instance, game and film criticism, philosophy, hobby enthusiast writing, etc is valuable too. It's just not journalism. Not being journalism does not automatically make you 'less than'. I think you can learn a lot more things of value reading philosophy than the news for example.

In much the same way, distinguishing press release regurgitation from journalism, we're talking about a particular definition of journalism, and throwing a dictionary, unsourced and merely showing all definitions encountered by the editors, out there isn't helpful.

Isn't that sort of the point of a dictionary? Most of this thread breaks down into an argument about what journalism is. I did about five minutes worth of googling (not a lot, in the grand scheme of things, I know), but nowhere could I find a definition of journalism that lines up with Cody's. Just because doesn't Kotaku doesn't live up to some imaginary, lofty standard that some people place on the word journalism, the things Kotaku posts are technically and literally journalism by the definitions I could find. That's was my point. If we start just ignoring the actual definitions of words (or assigning our own, imaginary definitions) then what's the point of defining them in the first place?

In much the same way, distinguishing press release regurgitation from journalism, we're talking about a particular definition of journalism, and throwing a dictionary, unsourced and merely showing all definitions encountered by the editors, out there isn't helpful.

Isn't that sort of the point of a dictionary?

No.

Most of this thread breaks down into an argument about what journalism is. I did about five minutes worth of googling (not a lot, in the grand scheme of things, I know), but nowhere could I find a definition of journalism that lines up with Cody's. Just because doesn't Kotaku doesn't live up to some imaginary, lofty standard that some people place on the word journalism, the things Kotaku posts are technically and literally journalism by the definitions I could find. That's was my point. If we start just ignoring the actual definitions of words (or assigning our own, imaginary definitions) then what's the point of defining them in the first place?

The purpose of a modern dictionary is to document the usage of words, not to say what is and isn't a correct definition. The first dictionaries were made for loanwords and difficult words an educated person might come across in writing.

The idea is that if you're reading a book and you see a character who is a boatswain, but you don't know what that means, you simply go to your Funk and Wagnalls and figure it out. You find out boat is just boat, and swain is a Norse word for boy. You find the exact position he holds on the ship, and learn it's traditionally pronounced bosun.

They're defined for the people who don't know the word. They are NOT there to show people in edge cases that they don't understand a word.

The reason you can't find a definition of that kind of journalism is the same reason I can't find the definition of "skeptic" to mean someone who doubts things unless supported by the scientific method. It doesn't mean that when I say James Randi is a skeptic I'm misusing the word. It means I'm using a particular type of that word with which many of us are familiar. It could be called scientific skepticism.

In journalism, there's hard news, there's punditry, there's investigative journalism, etc. Narc would know more about this than I do, that's for damn sure, but there are different types, and they won't make it into the dictionary.

Cody Miller had a specific type of journalism in mind, similar to the way I did when I said they actually practice it, that is leak journalism and investigative journalism. A dictionary has nothing to say on this.

Dictionaries cannot show a usage to be incorrect. All they can do is document at some level what usages occur. They lag behind language use, and they're not completely comprehensive.

So, to reiterate, the point of dictionaries is to try to tell you what a word means, and cannot, by design, tell you what a word doesn't mean. The only way to determine if a word doesn't mean something is a figurative trial by fire. Have some weirdo on a forum (Cody) say his completely wrong definition of journalism (which he did), and everybody tells him he's wrong (which we have). Dictionaries are a reference tool. They are not an arbiter of usage. People are.

Confounded. So, what *is* journalism, then?

A journalist write and reports NEWS. Things that MATTER. They could matter on a local, state, national, or international level, but they are important things that affect lives.

Entertainment almost by definition doesn't 'matter'. This doesn't mean that things that deal with the entertainment industry and not news. For instance, the recent pieces about the rampant pedophilia in Hollywood is journalism. Reporting on a leaked script or why so and so was fired is not.

EA spouse is the closest thing I can think of to an honest to goodness piece of journalism about video games.

Now that I understand how you're defining journalism, I can completely ignore this thread, because your reality and mine are far enough apart here that this is irrelevant to me. ;)

I want to make it clear that I do not place journalism higher than other writing in terms of value. For instance, game and film criticism, philosophy, hobby enthusiast writing, etc is valuable too. It's just not journalism. Not being journalism does not automatically make you 'less than'. I think you can learn a lot more things of value reading philosophy than the news for example.

Yeah, all of that is beside the point. The point was, you made a statement about journalism, which made no sense to me, until you defined what 'journalism' meant to you, at which point your statement became something I could agree with.

In simpler terms, an analogy:

You said "Birds can't fly."

I thought to myself, "well, that makes no sense."

You said "Birds, as I define them, are ostriches."

I thought to myself, "oh, okay, with his limited definition, I can buy into his first statement."

Conversation over. ;)

I think you're right, Speedracer. I used to not like them whatever, but I've changed my mind. Now I merely mostly dislike them.

Kotaku, remarkably, does appear to do actual games journalism. Other game news outlets do press releases or do interviews with the community managers of game companies or other fluff pieces. It's all complete fluff. Kotaku, very rarely, has actual investigative reporting, and reports on leaks, as opposed to most other large video game news sites or magazines. It's worth giving them credit for.

Investigative reporting?

Come on.

I'll call it that the first time a game reviewer files a FOIA request.

So, only governmental reporting qualifies as investigative journalism? Why?
Also, why is limiting the scope of your investigation to only entities who are most easily compelled to cooperate with your investigation above the qualifying bar?

I'm not going to spin out a whole other unresolvable thread tangent, but I will just plant a flag here in the ground for people who follow a more prescriptivist approach to language instead of the currently popular laissez-faire version of language. We have a different view of how limited the role of a dictionary's use is than this. Relatedly, strongly-held opinions about the merits of specific dictionaries. You, the reader, can be like us, if you wish.

Of all the times that people have yelled at you about making sure to include the phrase "in my opinion" or "to me" on this board I've never before felt like it was justified. It's a long-running expectation or desire on the Internet for people to have opinions redundantly labeled as being individual opinions — as if there were any other kind. But it makes people happy and costs little so there is value in that strong enough to keep me from taking a side.

This, however is the time that I can join the chorus. You're defining something based on your View of its personal importance or relative value to your life. Or the value you judge it has to other peoples lives. This is so far away from being subjective it cannot possibly be a definition or a qualifying requirement.

I don't expect this is important enough to really hammer out or be resolved at this point. I expect I'll just trace Claude's path and substitute the phrase "a news story I respect" anytime you use the word"journalism". That's how it read in the first post, so I'm glad we just tried to define terms rather than arguing about it.

Confounded. So, what *is* journalism, then?

A journalist write and reports NEWS. Things that MATTER. They could matter on a local, state, national, or international level, but they are important things that affect lives.

Entertainment almost by definition doesn't 'matter'. This doesn't mean that things that deal with the entertainment industry and not news. For instance, the recent pieces about the rampant pedophilia in Hollywood is journalism. Reporting on a leaked script or why so and so was fired is not.

EA spouse is the closest thing I can think of to an honest to goodness piece of journalism about video games.

Now that I understand how you're defining journalism, I can completely ignore this thread, because your reality and mine are far enough apart here that this is irrelevant to me. ;)

I want to make it clear that I do not place journalism higher than other writing in terms of value. For instance, game and film criticism, philosophy, hobby enthusiast writing, etc is valuable too. It's just not journalism. Not being journalism does not automatically make you 'less than'. I think you can learn a lot more things of value reading philosophy than the news for example.

Yeah, all of that is beside the point. The point was, you made a statement about journalism, which made no sense to me, until you defined what 'journalism' meant to you, at which point your statement became something I could agree with.

In simpler terms, an analogy:

You said "Birds can't fly."

I thought to myself, "well, that makes no sense."

You said "Birds, as I define them, are ostriches."

I thought to myself, "oh, okay, with his limited definition, I can buy into his first statement."

Conversation over. ;)

"Birds are Ostriches" is going to be the name of my new experimental post-punk band ;)

And my band will be named Pengiuns Too!

And my band will be named Pengiuns Too!

You should probably consider spelling it 'Penguins', though.

And my band will be named Pengiuns Too!

You should probably consider spelling it 'Penguins', though.

That's not very punk to spell it correctly.

Conversation over. ;)

I am curious.

NOT because I want to argue. NOT because I want to continue pressing my point. NOT because I want to tell you your definition is worse. But because we apparently ARE in such different worlds.

What is journalism according to you?

I won't even respond to the post; I am just legitimately curious.

And my band will be named Pengiuns Too!

You should probably consider spelling it 'Penguins', though.

That's not very punk to spell it correctly.

I thought it was post-punk?

Conversation over. ;)

I am curious.

NOT because I want to argue. NOT because I want to continue pressing my point. NOT because I want to tell you your definition is worse. But because we apparently ARE in such different worlds.

What is journalism according to you?

I won't even respond to the post; I am just legitimately curious.

I don't have an overarching definition ready... but pretty much anyone who writes for, say, a newspaper, whose content is printed (minus some obvious exceptions, like the guy who puts together the classifieds, and maybe the advice column person)... they're all journalists. Their job is to inform the public. Almost none of it actually MATTERS - but the guy who covers the police beat is a journalist, and so is the lady who covers the stock market. And the person who writes that article about the cat up in the tree on Maple Ave that needed rescuing by the fire department.

And, of course, the person who writes the article about corruption in the 911 office.

...anyone thinks that I meant that ONLY people who work for newspapers fit my definition... I didn't mean that.

TV reporters are journalists. Web folks can be journalists. Hell... if you get your story across via smoke signals, and it's aimed at the general public (and not, say, your wife)... you're a journalist, in my book.

A journalist (to me) is someone who spends their time informing the public, with facts. (Or even what they THINK are facts. That clause is there to differentiate from folks who inform the public with opinions.)

And my band will be named Pengiuns Too!

You should probably consider spelling it 'Penguins', though.

That's not very punk to spell it correctly.

I thought it was post-punk?

No, that's my band! Cody auditioned, but didn't make the cut ;p

A journalist (to me) is someone who spends their time informing the public, with facts. (Or even what they THINK are facts.

TIL Cody Miller is a journalist ;)

- No text -

- No text -

A journalist (to me) is someone who spends their time informing the public, with facts. (Or even what they THINK are facts. That clause is there to differentiate from folks who inform the public with opinions.)

Editorial board of the WSJ/NYT/Whatever writing an OP/ED - journalism?*

*Disclaimer to prevent Socratic questioning mistakenly appearing as arguing: I'm really asking your view.

A journalist (to me) is someone who spends their time informing the public, with facts. (Or even what they THINK are facts. That clause is there to differentiate from folks who inform the public with opinions.)

Editorial board of the WSJ/NYT/Whatever writing an OP/ED - journalism?*

*Disclaimer to prevent Socratic questioning mistakenly appearing as arguing: I'm really asking your view.

Dunno, actually. Hadn't thought about it before now. Guess if I stick with my original definition, no.

There are zero current prescriptivist dictionaries. Prescription is fine, in my opinion, which is one of the reasons I stick with American Heritage (along with my personal association with a few of the linguists working on it and on the usage panel, so I understand how it works). American Heritage is the only major dictionary that holds onto an opinion, and has a usage panel who suggest what to actually do.

Here's what happens with American Heritage, which again, is the single holdout among all dictionaries in prescription, which is limited to only a few hundred entries.

health·y (hĕlthē)

adj. health·i·er, health·i·est
1. Possessing good health: a healthy child.

2. Conducive to good health; healthful: healthy air.

3. Indicative of sound, rational thinking or frame of mind: a healthy attitude.

4. Sizable; considerable: a healthy portion of peas; a healthy raise in salary.

adv.
So as to promote one's health; in a healthy way: If you eat healthy, you'll probably live longer.

healthi·ly adv.

healthi·ness n.

Synonyms: healthy, wholesome, sound2, hale1, robust, well2
These adjectives refer to a state of good physical health. Healthy stresses the absence of disease or infirmity and is used of whole organisms as well as their parts: a healthy baby; flossed daily to promote healthy gums. Wholesome suggests a state of good health associated with youthful vitality or clean living: "In truth, a wholesome, ruddy, blooming creature she was" (Harriet Beecher Stowe).
Healthy and wholesome are often extended to conditions or choices deemed conducive to good health: a healthy lifestyle; wholesome foods. Sound emphasizes freedom from injury, imperfection, or impairment: "The man with the toothache thinks everyone happy whose teeth are sound" (George Bernard Shaw).
Hale stresses freedom from infirmity, especially in elderly persons, while robust emphasizes healthy strength and ruggedness: "He is pretty well advanced in years, but hale, robust, and florid" (Tobias Smollett).
Well indicates absence of or recovery from illness: felt well enough to make the trip.

Usage Note: Some people insist on maintaining a distinction between the words healthy and healthful. In this view, healthful means "conducive to good health" and is applied to things that promote health, while healthy means "possessing good health," and is applied solely to people and other organisms. Accordingly, healthy people have healthful habits. However, healthy has been used to mean "healthful" since the 1500s, as in this example from John Locke's Some Thoughts Concerning Education: "Gardening ... and working in wood, are fit and healthy recreations for a man of study or business." In fact, the word healthy is far more common than healthful when modifying words like diet, exercise, and foods, and healthy may strike many readers as more natural in many contexts. Certainly, both healthy and healthful must be considered standard in describing that which promotes health.

So this most prescriptive of dictionaries holds the view that many prescriptive rules, like healthful or shall versus will, are dumb. This one didn't involve the usage panel.

Yes, even literally the most prescriptive dictionary uses common usage to determine what should and should not occur in language. When they use a panel, it's literally a panel. They get a bunch of English teachers, linguists, writers, et cetera, and say "is this all right usage?" and they say if it is or not. Then, the dictionary sticks it in a usage note at the bottom. Here's one with information on how the panel thinks.

Usage Note: Transpire has been used since the mid-1700s in the sense "to become publicly known," as in Despite efforts to hush the matter up, it soon transpired that the colonels had met with the rebel leaders. While this usage has been considered standard for generations, it appears to be on shaky ground and could be headed for obsolescence. In our 2001 survey, 48 percent of the Usage Panel rejected it in the sentence quoted above. It might be better to use a synonym such as become known, leak out, or get around. · The more common use of transpire meaning "to happen or occur" has a more troubled history. Though it dates at least to the beginning of the 1800s, language critics have condemned it for more than one hundred years as both pretentious and unconnected to the word's original meaning, "to give off as vapor." But there is considerable evidence that resistance to this sense of transpire is weakening. In our 1966 survey, only 38 percent of the Usage Panel found it acceptable; in 1988, 58 percent accepted it in the sentence All of these events transpired after last week's announcement. In 2001, 66 percent accepted the same sentence. Nonetheless, many of the Panelists who accepted the usage also remarked that it was pretentious or pompous. This usage is easily avoided by saying happen, occur, or take place instead.

So, as we can see, even this most prescriptive of dictionaries uses the opinion of people to determine if a word is correct. And you know what? 100% of the time, the incorrect usage is listed in the definitions at the top of the entry, because it occurs.

The American Heritage dictionary was created because there were no prescriptive dictionaries on the market. When Webster's Third came out, it dropped its perceived prescription, widely publicized the inclusion of "ain't," and was equally as widely disregarded among the conservative language users. They would continue to use Webster's Second, of course conveniently ignoring that Webster's Second also included "ain't" and was a descriptive dictionary with comments like "slang" or "regional," though it also used "improper". American Heritage found a niche in the market, and they published this descriptive dictionary with usage notes to pacify conservatives.

Cheapley used Merriam Webster's collegiate. This is descriptive. Here's a list (complete, afaik) of current general, unabridged, dictionaries of English.

• Merriam-Webster - descriptive
  
• Collins - descriptive
  
• Oxford Dictionary of English - descriptive
  
• Oxford English Dictionary - descriptive
  
• Cambridge dictionary - descriptive
  
• Chamber's dictionary - descriptive
  
• American Heritage - descriptive
  
• Random House Webster's - descriptive
  
• Webster's New World - descriptive
  
• Oxford Canadian, American and Australian dictionaries - descriptive
  
• wordnik.com - descriptive

So can you see the problem with this? Using dictionaries as prescription means tryhard isn't a word, when it clearly is. People use it. It also means wang is a correct word for penis. It means cow is a correct word for a woman. It means girl is a correct word for boy. It means literally means figuratively. It means bemuse means to be amused. It means Xbox does not exist. Using dictionaries as an in any way reliable indicator of prescription is simply not possible.

Dictionaries literally cannot properly be used how you want to use them. They weren't designed for it, and they can't be done that way.

What you want is a style guide. Dictionaries were never what you want them to be. That was always the domain of style guides, the best and most influential being written in the early twentieth century. Beware, though, as you'll be saying octopodes, panino, and balCONy.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Elements_of_Style

Holy cow.

That is all batshit.

Also, I didn't know transpire was considered pompous.

Your posts are always my favorite, Funkmon.

Dictionaries with commentary sounds pretty damn cool, if space-consuming. On paper, I would hate them, but given our digital means, I want it everywhere.

All I know is that literally literally doesn't mean literally anymore.

Where do dictionaries stand on the abbreviation of words? At what point does a shortened version of a word just replace that word?

I'm specifically thinking of the word legitimate. I want to punch babies every time I hear someone say "legit," and I think I nearly blacked out the few times I've heard someone say "legitly."

I want to punch babies every time I heard someone say "legit,"

Oops...

and I think I nearly blacked out the few times I've heard someone say "legitly."

o_O

Investigative reporting?

Come on.

I'll call it that the first time a game reviewer files a FOIA request.

So, only governmental reporting qualifies as investigative journalism? Why?
Also, why is limiting the scope of your investigation to only entities who are most easily compelled to cooperate with your investigation above the qualifying bar?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Investigative_journalism

"Investigative journalism is a form of journalism in which reporters deeply investigate a single topic of interest, such as serious crimes, political corruption, or corporate wrongdoing."

I'd probably be willing to expand a definition a bit beyond that, but not much beyond.

At the very least, I'd consider public interest to be a prerequisite-- not the broad definition meaning "things the public express interest in" but the narrow definition, in terms of "things the public has a right to know" because it affects them.

Consumer fraud, labor disputes, debates about violence and sexism, these things might potentially apply.

Whether or not a game deserved a 7/10 doesn't.

Rushing to get the "scoop" on a 7 week delay for a game that's been in development for years so that you get the clicks instead of somebody else... that's not investigative journalism even if you use the procedures of that form to get your information.

For example, pram or pub.

They don't usually replace the dictionary entry for the word that has been shortened, unless it's been so long it doesn't even count anymore. An example is lord. Here is the etymology from the OED, though the entry is eight pages long.

Here is the OED entry for legit. First use: 1897.

Dictionaries with commentary sounds pretty damn cool, if space-consuming. On paper, I would hate them, but given our digital means, I want it everywhere.

You'd think the commentary would be nice on the PC, but the dictionary with the most commentary, the OED, it's much much worse than on paper.

Here's the OED entry for dog. The image is so large I literally cannot capture the entire webpage, so here's a video of me scrolling through it. If you change it to 720p at 60fps you can read it and pause as it goes.

This is what the top of that entry looks like.

But on paper, it's much simpler. I have a compact, earlier edition of the OED in only three volumes, down from the current 23 volumes, but the print is small.

Commentary on dog. Much more manageable.

Any word* on why it isn't present in other Germanic languages?

*heh

Ctrl+- is your friend.

Also, Ctrl+F

- No text -

It was formed within English as a compound, so the logic is found within other Germanic languages, but not the exact components. Some examples of this were listed, like meat mother in the Scandi languages or brotherr in German, pronounced like brote hair might be in English. Brot is bread, Herr is like Master or Mister.

They just used different words.

Frances Brooke · The history of Emily Montague: In four volumes · 1769. Volume IV, page 83:

He is a fortunate man to be introduced to such a party of fine women at his arrival; it is literally to feed among the lilies.

Joy! I love the "Quote Dictionaries to Prove My Point Game."

You should look up "news" next. It's got words like "important" and "noteworthy." Those mean that games "journalism," when held up to real journalism (like I dunno the Pentagon Papers) don't reasonably qualify as journalism at all. Which was my point.

Feel free to look up "important" and "noteworthy" as well, if you're having trouble.

Ok, but what is the value of capturing an entry in a photograph? Especially when you are using it to compare to text data? If you wanted it to fit, buy the way you could just change size and layout - because text data is better than a photograph in that way. It feels like your criticism is with that web page, not with digitized data.

I feel bad. Because I don't want to have this argument on the board I left out some information in the original post which seems to lead you to spend a lot of time building an argument against some positions and opinions that I don't hold.

Sorry.

I feel bad. Because I don't want to have this argument on the board I left out some information in the original post which seems to lead you to spend a lot of time building an argument against some positions and opinions that I don't hold.

Sorry.

Don't feel bad. By leaving a perceived spectrum of interpretation open in your words you allowed Funkmon the ability do the activities that allow him to be Funkmon. Without the occasional tangent into linguistic nuances, he may very well cease to be Funkmon. You allowed a pure expression of the Funkmon to exist.

I happen to agree with the thrust of his understanding of linguistics, but I always suspected he was waging a war against a perceived position, rather than an actual opponent.

- No text -

- No text -

It would have to either be paginated (bad idea on this type of website) or a wall of text. The problem is the amount of data available and displayed. The issue is reading reference books on a computer, since you cannot get an idea of its layout and contents quickly. It's an order of magnitude more text than is allowed in these text boxes.

With the books, you can easily flip through and find what you're looking for.

Here is the text.

http://pastebin.com/iuTQVPd2

I quickly copied and pasted two entries I remembered had relevant usage notes and made a list of dictionaries off the top of my head, and just talked about why you can't use a dictionary as an indicator of prescription while I was watching a movie in another window. Don't feel bad.

You disagreed with my comment that dictionaries can't be used for that. I explained further why, and how. If you, in any way, hold the opinion that a dictionary is useful in this regard, which you do, then I think I argued against an opinion you hold. If you don't want to talk here, please email me.

But this is a dictionary we're talking about. No one is supposed to read it through. You read only what is of your interest. And it's even organized alphabetically (usually) for convenience sake, so we're very used to skipping the hell out of it.

Hell, the online dictionaries are all separated by entry for this exact reason. You're not really expected to "leaf through" the thing like you would in a science book.