Worst story of 2016

So bad it’s goo.


Our judges struggled to select the absolute worst gaming story of 2016 – because all 42 entries were horrific in their own way. But one was amusing and meta…

An anonymous somebody submitted the Kunkel post that announced the Worst Story of Year category. Now that’s good comedy.

Sadly, it was the first and last laugh.

Our three judges settled on three terrible stories that each committed a cardinal sin of journalism. First, there’s Rock Band 4 is doing a lot of the fun things you want it to do from Polygon – a large media outlet that won second place last year for Excellence in News Reporting.

Alas, this was excellent only at self-indulgence. Here’s the opening paragraph…

A few of my more effervescent, more gregarious, more alive colleagues in game journalism are on stage “rocking out” to The Killers. We are on the rooftop of a pricey hotel in Santa Monica, at a press event organized by Rock Band 4’s developer and publisher Harmonix.

Guess what? No one cares about you. To be more specific, no one wants to read about how much fun you’re having “on the rooftop of a pricey hotel.” If you fell off that roof, no one would mourn you.

Journalists are simply data-delivery androids. That’s their only value to society. Spat one judge…

This reads like a fucking diary entry. “I’m having an OK time,” the writer says, like that’s at all relevant to a Rock Band 4 review. “I don’t care about music. I dislike crowds and I dislike loud noises.” BUT THIS IS A LOUD MUSIC GAME! Why are you telling me about your preferences? Are you rehearsing for your Tinder profile? It takes the writer 11 paragraphs to get to the game’s features – after sifting through a very odd tangent about his grandmother.

Concluded another judge:”Journalism isn’t about you, the writer. It’s about your audience, the readers. Go fuck yourself.”

As you might’ve noticed, this newest Kunkel category elicited the most “fucks” from our judges. They’re actually compassionate people, but they believe journalism’s porcelain-like reputation will crack beyond all repair if idiots keep fumbling with its basic rules.

That’s why they also despised Why Isn’t it Called No Woman’s Sky? from Jezebel. This story – if you can call a total of 91 words a “story” – explains why  the feminist website won’t write a story about a video game called No Man’s Sky…

We find the name of this “first person space travel” game to be distasteful, offensive, and shamelessly anti-feminist.

Ranted one judge…

Essentially, “We don’t like the name of this game, so we’re not gonna review it.” OK, then don’t fucking post about it. Especially if you’re not going to even fucking ask the developer the question in your headline and get some kind of comment. I’m not sure WTF this is, but it’s not good or funny or useful or journalism.

The issue here isn’t feminism, it’s journalism. If you’re going to slag on someone, at least try talking with them.

Another judge thought this could’ve been a superb story – if Jezebel had done more…

The headline should have been “Why Jezebel Won’t Cover This Game.” It’s BECAUSE the title is offensive that an offended feminist site should COVER it. That’s, like, journalism 101. Missed opportunity, for sure.

In other words, instead of simply declaring you’re offended, interview the people who offended you and get their side. Ask other feminists (and anti-feminists) about the blatant or subtle impact of a game’s name.

Two more cringe-worthy points…

1. What about the content of the game? Heaven forbid the game itself is actually feminist – but because you refused to even play it, you don’t know. Journalism means follow-through.

2. Jezebel’s principled stand ends with, “For an in-depth review, please visit our sister site.” Huh?

Finally, there’s My GamerGate silence helped elect Trump (and other truths). The fetid issue here has nothing to do with GamerGate. It has to do with journalists embracing clickbait headlines that over-sell the actual story, and then pimping their other stories way too hard.

Explains one judge…

I knew the writer would make a large-scale controversy all about her just from reading the headline. But I was nevertheless appalled to see she promoted her previous stories in the FIRST PARAGRAPH – you know, the paragraph meant to grab a reader’s attention. The shameless self-plug alone ranks this one poorly in my book.

So that’s every pair of shoes in the place. The second annual Kunkel Awards are over. How’d we do this year? Tell us how much we suck in the comments below. Next week, we announce a big change to next year’s Kunkel Awards.


Defending the First Amendment and promoting open government are more crucial now than ever. Join SPJ's fight for the public’s right to know — either as an SPJ Supporter or a professional, student or retired journalist.


Connect

Twitter Facebook Google Plus RSS Instagram Pinterest Pinterest LinkedIn


© Society of Professional Journalists. All rights reserved. Legal

Society of Professional Journalists
Eugene S. Pulliam National Journalism Center, 3909 N. Meridian St., Indianapolis, IN 46208
317/927-8000 | Fax: 317/920-4789 | Contact SPJ Headquarters | Employment Opportunities | Advertise with SPJ