I thought I was quite clear. They shouldn't be reporting on it. It's a non-issue. Another organisation desperate for attention picks on games as an easy target. Giving this any attention is doing a disservice to gaming unless they are specifically accusing a game devloper of doing something wrong, then it's news. Games should respect international war crimes law? I have never heard of anything so stupid in all my life. If we extend human rights to virtual constructs we have worse problems than the geneva convention, we have fucking Skynet on the way.

If Kotaku/Escapist or now Eurogamer (*facepalm*) want to report this then report it as gaming media and tell the Red Cross just how stupid they are. More importantly ask them why they are wasting their precious time and money (which comes from donations from people like me and you) chasing this utterly worthless topic. If I had to cover this topic if would be "Soap McTavish isn't real or why the Red Cross need to shut up and go back to saving lives".

I think i know where you are going with this but it is confusing. Trademarks have to be defended. If i start selling drinks with Pepsi logo and pepsi does not do anything (and it is proven that they knew about it and some time passed) because of trademarks laws they will lose TM on Pepsi logo. meaning everyone and everything will be able to use it. even coca cola :)
the misuse of the logo for example does not fall under trademark infringement (what i would be doing with my drinks). they will also not lose it even if it is widely misused. if you want to use it, different laws govern that too.
While to some extent you can make a comparison between pepsi logo and Red Cross symbol the comparison will be very limited. okay? and the point is? there was no ownership of the symbol before RC was established. so not sure where you are going with this. Where does that say this? Official symbol is red cross on white background. on the page previously posted they referred to only to that. no mention of only plus. If the game developers get the permission then yeah. they can do that. Medkits in real life do carry the symbol when they got the permission from RC. If game dev. gets the same, i don't see a problem.

I'm not 100% behind OP, but imo sensationalist/ratings journalism is the lowest form of journalism & should be used solely for entertainment and/or direction to better news sources, and in the worst cases it shouldn't even be printed at all as it does more harm than good.

so many words but only one argument:
"It's a non-issue"
that's it. the only reason why you said why Kotaku should not report it, is because you find it to be small news.
everything you said is targeted at RC.
You did say about disservice but there is no argument there. just attack on RC but no argument for kotaku not publishing news (not opinion, news)
but also:
So are you actually suggesting Kotaku should decide what is good or bad for gaming and only report news which they deem makes gamers/games/industry look good while everything else should be a taboo not worth mentioning?

Yay. Lets do that with political, military news too.

You disappoint me Delixe and I am not the only one judging by this thread.

Your about 95% behind me then because that's pretty much what I have been saying. Be thankful Kotaku are based in the US. If they were in the UK they would be reporting about Keith Vaz every second day.

edit

i agree... but they didnt do that this time did they? there is no opinions, no judgments, no spinning. just the news, quotes and just added explanation who is who and what is what.

Oooh, am I going to be graded or something?

Seriously what is not to understand? I don't like sensationalist media, I don't like scaremongering. Look at the banner image FFS. War criminal in training? You don't see the problem with that?

You don't seem to be "getting" his true point then. He isn't literally saying the events RC put in motion aren't totally a non-issue, just the "slant" which Kotaku used for it's article on the topic and how they chose to run with it.
They DID spin it though, although in a way too subtle for most to see. As Delixe said, like with the header image, and HOW they presented the story.....Kotaku might not believe in the story it's trying to present but it knows how to write a story to get ratings.

1. They should report it in a more non-spin fashion than not at all, is what I think he meant/means.

2. With regards to what RC did they are either trying to get attention or just plain insane with this move of theirs. (Applying Geneva convention to game characters/etc)

3. Sensationalism can be spun for good or bad....to make the public aware of an issue for good or bad reasons, using actual info and pictures or scare tactics. These are scare tactics(the header/etc).

4. It's hard for me to explain(I don't word stuff well) but it is there. The pic alone sets the tone for the ad and is enough to influence the weaker minded on how to perceive the article itself and feel about it's content.

I have tried to explain and GR seems to get my point but you are either refusing to see it or for some reason can't see it. I will try one last time because quite frankly I wish I never made this thread. You say people are disappointed in me, well I'm disappointed in a lot of the posters on here who don't demand better from games journalists.

If I was working for some website like Kotaku and I was forced to find news every single minute of the day I would still look at this report, laugh and throw it in the trash pile. If I had to report on it I would write it as a gamer and in that sense I would go on to explain WHY the Red Cross have no business even looking at something that's virtual. Kotaku have run with a banner headline saying WAR CRIMINAL IN TRAINING. This is the kind of headline I expect from the gutter trash tabloids here in Ireland and the UK like the Daily Star and The Daily Mail. It's not journalism and it's not news, it's sensationalist garbage based on the ramblings of someone who probably hasn't played a game since Pac Man and then was shown COD: Black Ops.

If this was the music industry or the movies I would expect a critic to come out and explain in complete detail why the Red Cross are wrong and why they have no business poking their noses into something which is nothing to do with them. Instead we have the games journalists who think of nothing but page hits and probably can't construct an argument against the Red Cross' position because they don't have the intelligence.

1)there is no spin in the article. A header maybe. which is technically correct. Actions in most war games would make player character a war criminal

2)what RC is doing, whether it is right or not is not something most of us here were discussing. we have the symbol discussion but not about whether rc is doing is correct or not. Delixe throws that like it is Kotaku's fault.

3)The article does not contain any opinions of Kotaku, it does not highlights anything RC said in negative way (or positive. or at all). It just reports bunch of quotes from bunch of people and adds only few facts but without any negativity. If your whole problem with the article is the header then it is not really a problem.

4) ... wait. are you suggesting that I am not a weaker mind because the banner does not influence me? Thank you. :P

1. The WAY the header pic is used is spin, plain and simple....what with how the article is written and all.(More on that below)

2. He never said it was Kotaku's fault about RC's actions, just that Kotaku is giving them attention in such a way(as in how people feel/think after reading the article.) that it will make some or many who read the article and are gullible side with RC's points.

3. Just leaving a scare tactics header and an article is a good scaremongering/spin tactic. Without explaining a position or stance on RC's actions and leaving that header there they know the gullible will associate header with article and it will influence the weaker minded who read it.

This is just like how Fox News uses scaremongering pictures onscreen while it reports it's "news" as it knows people will see the pictures and the pictures will influence the person's mind who is listening to or reading the story.

4. No, you'd be weaker minded if it did influence you. :)

Edit: Most fair news journalists when reporting explain the issue from a non-biased POV without scare-inducing/emotion-grabbing pictures or other visual aids, and try not to let their own bias slip into the article. If it's a piece based on an editor's writer's POV the writer will(to be fair) usually write that the article is their opinion and explain why they hold that opinion.

This article was just a scare inducing header and a bunch of facts thrown into an "article" without explaining the facts in more detail and if the writer thought the facts were good or not & why, to make sure the reader didn't get the wrong impressions from the article.

You are mistaking news from opinions.

In news you are reporting facts, you do not analyze the news.

Aka
News is
RC wants to ban violent games

Opinion is
Why RC should not be banning violent games.

two different things which you confuse and I finally understand you. Kotaku might follow this news piece with an analysis of what RC is doing.
from first page of google news:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204770404577078562944299248.html
random article. its news. authors do not write how they thinks what italy is doing is correct or not. they just reports the news.

so no
kotaku should write why rc is doing is good/bad but they also should report news as unbiased as possible. they did that with this article.
whether they do that with other news is not of my concern and not a topic of this discussion,.