Maybe I'm just more used to the BBC than Sky/Fox news but I am used to seeing news presented as unbiased as possible. In this case you always have a counterpoint to the statement. Prime Minister makes a statement on the economy? Then you have a financial expert to talk about it. In this case Kotaku have led with an extremely objectionable banner which already puts you in a state of mind about the content of the news. This is the journalistic equivalent of dumping bad news on someone while saying "I'll just leave this here" before leaving the room. It's bad, sloppy news and like I said sensationalist garbage. The kind of thing Fox news does all the time.

There are too many people working as games journalists who don't have any journalistic skills and Crecente appears to be one of them. I expect the news presented but also given analysis. But I guess that's too much to ask from journalists who think entertainment is the presenter of G4TV swallowing a hot dog like it's a cock.

which is technically correct and it is just a header. it is meant to grab attention. nothing more. yes. yes he did
"Yes is the only answer that would justfy publishing that. The Red Cross do wonderful work around the world but they have no business looking at games"
"Cleidophoros: Be that as may reporting RC's view about games and morality is not being worst in games reporting.
Delixe: Oh.God. Seriously? What the hell are the Red Cross doing looking at games? Seriously?" Fine. just a header. worth an outrage? worth screaming your lungs off? diminishing the whole article
no. not true. Fox news use that tactic through whole program, through whole part of news. Kotaku only did that with the title. rest is unbiased piece of news. The only problem i see is the header. rest of article is news, facts, they should not be opinions. maybe article is too short not enough facts which combined with the pic does make it 'suggestive'; valid complaints which you made not delixe.
but the whole situation (kill the author, omg kotaku is so horrible) really does not suit what i read there. Even if the article is flawed like you said... the whole outburst is simply uncalled for.

but meh. i learned a lot about RC in past 14 hours :) thank you Delixe thank you kotaku.
you see Delixe... :P you can make sense!

If you made this post as your first one, if you actually explained your position from the beginning (instead of wishing someone death. even if it was exaggeration) we wouldn't be having this discussion.

Kotaku really pissed you off yesterday didn't it?

When did I ever say that? I said an accident. If people had not jumped in to attack me I would have said a broken wrist so he had some time off from writing. I would even be happy with a sprain. As it stands I left this thread as you well know because people were getting a little too agressive with me. I came back to clarify that I was exagerrating unless you think when I say I wish a rock falls on someones head I am being serious.

You said people were disappointed with me but I was far more disappointed with the backlash I received here especially as I thought people would know me by now. It's not like I haven't been posting here.

1. Some use headers to shape how you feel so that they can influence you as you consume the media that follows it. It's an old spin tactic btw.....how one feels when dealing with/reading about something can be altered in various ways depending on how you lead into it.

2. In that he talks about being against RC's tactics. He never said or inferred that the RC's actions leading up to the article were Kotaku's ideas or fault. Just that Kotaku could be inadvertently giving RC's actions some supporters by the way they slant their article.

3. It is if the header is meant to influence how the reader will react to the content that follows, and is done for ratings or other not so fair and nice reasons.

4. It's unbiased text but the header causes many to read the text with an unbiased slant/view. More spin tactics from the playbook.

5. Did I infer or say the author should die? No. But I agree it's spin and crap journalism as Delixe does. He just got a bit miffed about it more than others here, and let it get to him it seems.

I can sum up how this story makes me feel with a few words...

There is a fifth dimension beyond that which is known to man. It is a dimension as vast as space and as timeless as infinity. It is the middle ground between light and shadow, between science and superstition, and it lies between the pit of man's fears and the summit of his knowledge. This is the dimension of imagination. It is an area which we call "The Twilight Zone".

Ugh, the longer I live, the less faith I have in humanity to recognize their own blatant stupidity.

+1

You said bad accident. unless you explain it it means death or coma or something very extreme. not a sprain wrist. You are just defending yourself but this was your attitude in first post. Combined it with the tone of the whole post no wonder we didn't take it lightly what you were saying. There was a huge surprise indeed (someone even mentioned that) but go reread everything you wrote, how you answer (for example this: http://www.gog.com/en/forum/general/kotaku_have_crossed_the_line/post34 to another well respected poster). look at it objectively. do not think about RC about Kotaku. just how you reacted.
I'm sorry but the backlash was deserved.

1. He never said accident that killed. I think you're overreacting here.

2. So past writings determine how we treat everyone else here?

Because I constantly read crap posts or nasty written ones and later see something written nicely by those people and if I want to reply I do so based on the new post not the poster's post history.

More to the point, if they don't protect its use as their exclusive symbol of their humanitarian efforts, then it can, over time, dilute the meaning the symbol. That doesn't mean much to us... but imagine this extreme example just as illustration... A trucking company called Trucks Plus (because, I don't know, they do extra stuff for you) starts putting plus signs that look like red crosses on their trucks and they deliver industrial supplies all over Mexico (chose at random). A civil war erupts in Mexico and The Red Cross responds by setting up refugee camps and makeshift hospitals... but Mexican rebels want to attack government supply lines and target trucks with the big red plus sign... thus killing doctors, nurses, refugees, etc in the process.

I know... extreme and it sounds like the plot of a B grade action movie... but that is the point.

It isn't important to us. It is life or death to them. Let them have this issue.

That banner does look like it came from a tabloid. But that's the point: it's a joke, making fun of how other media report about games. Kotaku is gaming blog targeted at gamers, they make fun of people who call games "murder simulators" etc.

Implied i would say. Definitely not a sprained wrist. Erm... Delixe said that. that he is surprised that people treat him like that even tough his other posts are good.
what you said happened exactly in this thread.

This is a great point. I would have brought it up myself if it didn't dilute my argument. I do understand some need for the protection of such a sign.

But if the sign is protected so strongly, why should we tie it to only one organization which can fulfill it's symbolage (a complex question, not just rhetorical)? I think it would work quite a bit better if we treated it more akin to the white flag of surrender. But that said, we already know that a sign like this could be confused in such a way. What if England decided one day to be distinct from Great Britain and participate in conflict? Any organizations that had similar symbolage previously fall under the same hypothetical picture.

To get back to my argument with lucasz for a moment:

The crux of my argument is this: The generic nature of the symbolage is the problem. I really am fine with the Red Cross having an emblem of their own. But to seek protection on the one they're using now, presents a problem by (the symbol) being so basic. It really doesn't take much, for one uneducated with the symbol, to create it and there is a simplistic logic to forging it, without the subtext of the Red Cross's organization. That's mostly what I'm trying to get at within the context of the timeframe argument. They might not have observed how the average citizen could create the symbol without regard to its significance.

If you disagree with how I can construe a red cross as a universal health sign (without the input of the historical impact it's had), or that it's all too easy to apply it to a white background, then we'll have to leave it at that.

As one of my previous comments about the OT went, I completely agree with lucasz regarding Kotaku. I'm sorry to disappoint you, Delixe D: . (Btw, I do agree that the journalistic practices of all of those publications are suspect too often. But we seem quite aware of that and it's not really something worth raging over. At the very least, allow them some insignificant headline spin. I take the provocative statement as satire, honestly. They know their audience.)

P.S. That Half-Life medical station is funny in that it also abuses the Cadaceus symbol at the same time :D .

Well if that's what you believe then the simple answer to all your woes is I should stop posting full stop. Easily done. Good day to you sir.

For some videogame playing, armchair jockey to criticise the entire Red Cross organisation, who do a tremendous job all over the world, just because he has an un-naturally large bee up his arse about something is ridiculous beyond belief.

If he ever does anything of actual worth or makes a real contribution to society then I'll give him an ear.. but til then it just sounds as if he's got some inadeqacy issues.