I understand the basic idea of being upset that someone with a large platform isn’t using the platform “for good”, but this whole article reads like the journalist was foaming at the mouth with vitriol that a popular host wasn’t posting about what they wanted him to post about. It makes me… Uncomfortable
There is pre-existing context and criticism. And it is not about, or just being the perception of “this journalist”:
https://www.theverge.com/23992402/geoff-keighley-the-game-awards-layoffs
https://videogames.si.com/features/games-industry-deserves-better-than-geoff-keighley
https://www.inverse.com/gaming/the-game-awards-2023-needs-to-acknowledge-industrys-lay-offs-problem
https://dotesports.com/the-game-awards/news/the-game-awards-layoffs-developers-no-respect
The problems also goes beyond just the layoffs, but his overt coziness and preferential treatment of large studios, over even the ones that actually won the award he is presiding over, and are supposed to be celebrated:
https://insider-gaming.com/geoff-keighley-shows-cowardice-at-the-game-awards/
https://www.eurogamer.net/the-game-awards-speeches-were-too-short-geoff-keighley-admits
So you did no research, gained no understanding, didn’t follow any of the linked resources and instead decided that you feel uncomfortable.
Keighley has a history of standing out in front of larger issues, only a few years he literally castigated Konami at his awards show for how it fired Hideo Kojima and then celebrated the man in his absence.
This article makes clear the nature of his so called convictions- they are for sale. If that doesn’t make you uncomfortable but a cited article written by a respected journalist does then I would say you might want to think more about what makes you uncomfortable and why.
Keighly has a history of working in games media to publicise games. He was never an investigative reporter publishing things the industry didn’t want talked about. If you read his writing from before starting the game awards, it was like most gaming media, little more than third party advertising for upcoming games.
The thing with Kojima wasn’t some principled stance against injustice. He gave the award he was scheduled despite konami’s decision. That’s showbusiness. The awards are the result of a vote. Had konami allowed Kojima to attend, he wouldn’t have mentioned the firing.
Many asked Keighly to mention the layoffs at his show. Those familiar with his work knew not to expect it. The show is funded by games publishers. Calling out one publisher is fine in some circumstances. Calling out the industry as a whole is a good way to make this show your last.
He didn’t just give Kojima an award in absentia, he very directly and deliberately complained that Konami would not let Kojima attend to receive the award. He makes comments and has strong opinions when it’s safe for him to do so.
You’re not wrong about his press-as-marketing nature but in no way does this mean he shouldn’t be criticised for his actions in this case, in fact I would think these actions bolster the critique.
If you look at this from an entirely cynical lens, backing Kojima is the sensible choice. Kojima wasn’t leaving the industry. He would have a high level, influential job wherever he ended up.
At the same time, Konami was publicly backing out of the games industry. Konami is a multimedia company with many divisions. Their casinos are far more profitable than their games, so they were making major cuts to their gaming division.
Backing the major industry figure against the company that doesn’t want to make games anymore is what anyone running a show like the game awards would optimally do. That’s why you shouldn’t consider it a principled stance.
I don’t consider it a principled stance, quite the opposite. I think Keighley is mercenary. The point is that the article repeats and solidifies those concerns - it accurately calls him out for both his silence when people are suffering and his faux interest when he can push a product (in this case a recruiter) who benefits himself. My point raised about Kojima is that he complains about things when he’s safe to do so and then will even go beyond complaint to grandstanding using the full weight of his awards to make it seem like he has a concerned moral position to share.
I suppose the idea of someone’s convictions being for sale isn’t really a new idea, and I don’t follow Keighley, I just found the writing style of the article interestingly venomous. I didn’t place any value in his opinions as it was, so there’s nowhere for my opinion to really go to given the new information, but I’m certainly not saying it doesn’t matter.
I understand that given context, and agree that sounds shamefully cynical and a fall from grace for certain.
Do you find it at all strange that you have a strong reaction to something given you know you have little context for?
Not really a strong reaction, but I am definitely a strange guy
Saved you a click. Signal boosting a site for jobs postings.
Well, making news for Geoff not tweeting something is already click bait.
