2017 Winners
Jump to:
– Excellence in News Reporting
– Excellence in Feature Writing
– Excellence in News Video/Streaming
– Excellence in College Gaming Journalism: Announcement coming May 10
– Excellence in eSports Writing: Announcement coming May 12
– Excellence in Feature Video/Streaming: Announcement coming May 14
News Video/Streaming
Read more about this category [blogs.spjnetwork.org]
NO FIRST, SECOND OR THIRD PLACE AWARDED
HONORABLE MENTION:
The ESA Gaming Report has Serious Problems
By Game Objective
Judges’ comments: Most of the judges agreed this was an imperfect winner...
The elements are there. You tell me what the study is, you point out how widely cited it is as justification for examining the methodology, you identify how the methodology is pretty opaque, and you contrast to reputable stats from Pew. It's good stuff, just not in the right order for someone who isn't already invested in the topic to care.
But not every judge was as positive. Grudo, the judge who chose no finalists made this critique...
Narrator tells me there are "problems" with the study and adds little else before going into background. So I don't really know what he's about to give me.
Circa 0:41, narrator study is "widely reported and cited," showing us screengrabs without mentioning them or their context. Do those examples constitute wide reporting and citation? More importantly, does it matter? Is this about media reporting or about the report? Because earlier, narrator says report, but now we're on to media.
He offered this advice...
Be clear and intentional with your thesis. Narrator follows this up with sweeping generalizations about academic citation and what "people" do, as well. Says things about folks accepting the reports "without question." Maybe that's true. But how does narrator know? And how will I know?
In fact, he didn’t believe the journalist had a reason to be credible...
I really wanted to keep listening past the bit at 1:00, when narrator laughs at media reporting things without context and without question after having made a slew of unsubstantiated claims with no context and with no evidence. So I didn't keep listening. I have little to no reason to trust this journo at this point and in this piece, and really, neither should anyone.
Which is why this piece is placing an Honorable Mention instead of an award. Grudo wants it on the record, though, that he “does not honor this piece.”
But unlike Grudo, another judge was pleased...
I like this because it does question what is considered an industry standard. It's a success because it did what a lot of publications didn't do in digging into the numbers and searching for where they came from. The audio quality is good, the attitude isn't overly flippant--it's an approachable piece. To nit-pick, the actual presentation could have been a little better, but the information and story itself feel very solid.
Congratulations to Game Objective, who has won the Kunkels’ first Honorable Mention award.
Excellence in Feature Writing
Read more about this category [blogs.spjnetwork.org]
First Place:
How Designers Engineer Luck Into Video Games
By Simon Parkin, Nautilus
Judges’ conclusions: The judges agreed that the wide accessibility of the story is what earned its spot in first place...
It’s more accessible to non-gamers. I do not need to be a gamer to appreciate this story. And I want to emphasize that not every story has to resonate outside of games, but when a story is able to do that, it stands out. It can cover a lot of objectives in the Code of Ethics.
The judge also considered the potential impact of the story...
This is the type of story a 12-year-old reads and decides he wants to be a game designer.
Another judge agreed...
It’s okay to have a niche audience and play to it, but when you can take your audience to the broader level, you’re bringing people up while not bringing the story down. It makes the story stand out that much more.
That same judge also felt it was a tight package, focused on a very central piece. Simply put...
It’s a fucking amazing story.
SECOND PLACE:
Game Developers Speak Up In The Face Of Obamacare Repeal
By Joseph Knoop, Waypoint/Vice
Judges’ comments: One judge appreciated a piece on Obamacare in the context of game developers...
Amazing connect. This is exactly what Polygon and Kotaku need to aspire to. When gaming journalism is normalized, this is what you’re writing about. Gaming journalism with an angle on health. That’s fucking badass.
They were impressed with the amount of detail dedicated to the story...
Really big, lots of interviews. It elevates a story out of its original context.
The main critique from the judges lies in the presentation...
It’s not on the level of the Luck piece. The headline is eh. The lazy headline that does nothing to draw me in. Could you pick a more boring verb?
THIRD PLACE:
Saving Japan's Games
By Chris Kohler, Kotaku
Judges’ comments: The judges were impressed with the interesting quotes, but they found one glaring error they just couldn’t get past...
Worst lede I’ve ever seen but otherwise good work. This journalist stole the pleasure of so many people enjoying this story with that lede.
Another judge agreed, finding the story incredibly powerful but overshadowed with what they call a “terrible lede.” They pointed to a paragraph in the story that would have been more impactful up top...
Seventy-two hours after he booted up the PC-98, something went wrong, and the power supply got fried. It was unrepairable, and irreplaceable. “I was so sad, I cried,” Redon said. “I tried everything to reach this world, but now it disappears in front of me.” That was the last straw. “In 2000, I decided to leave everything—apartment, cats, girlfriend, family, job—and with my last paycheck, I moved to Japan.”
It’s so meticulous and serious about this because of this traumatic experience he had because of his computer breaking. That should have been the lede. Very bizarre thing that would draw people in.
Their advice is to take a personal step back, talk about yourself less, and about the story more.
Step aside. You don’t matter [in the context of the story]. I’m glad you’re doing this but you don’t matter in the story. I kind of blame the editor more than the writer. They should have caught this.
But overall, they were very impressed with the quotes the reporter could obtain from their source...
It’s apparent the reporter felt a rapport with the source and was able to get honest and vulnerable perspective. The quotes we like are the ones that are interesting and that’s not easy. It’s commendable and awardable and that’s what we’re doing.
News Reporting
Read more about this category [blogs.spjnetwork.org]
First Place:
The Curious Case Of The 'EA Game Dev' Who Said He Received Death Threats
By Jason Schreier, Kotaku
Judges’ conclusions: The judges were highly impressed by the journalist fighting against misinformation which already made its way into mainstream media...
This story is a journalist figuring out fake news. USA Today, BBC, Yahoo and Vice covered something that really wasn’t a thing, and this person figured it out. And that’s fucking hardcore. This is journalism on journalism in a time that is so important. And who has the time to do that?
Another judge agreed, praising the journo for vetting sources even after most mainstream publications accepted false information without verifying...
He deserves the credit for digging into this because nobody would necessarily do that. By the time mainstream media got to this story, you get to this groupthink situation where everyone’s covered the story and trusted that someone else has vetted it and that didn’t happen. So I absolutely do think we should award it for vetting and calling it out. And he did talk to the guy, he did the full due diligence and tried to get him on the record. The whole nine yards, everything is there, and it’s very solid.
They noted that being in the niche industry of gaming journalism allowed the journo to understand things that journos outside the field could miss...
This story is emblematic of why games journalism needs to be more prominent. The folks at BBC and USA Today don't see these trends because they may not have the resources or know how to see these things, and here’s misinformation flowing into the ether because of that.
Unanimously, the judges felt this piece kicked ass. One felt that this piece covers the idea of “what journalism is supposed to be and that’s what I appreciate about it.”
It’s revealing the truth and digging down behind the lies. We have to commend that.
SECOND PLACE:
The Collapse Of Visceral's Ambitious Star Wars Game
By Jason Schreier, Kotaku
Judges’ comments: In terms of “breaking news reporting,” this piece hit the mark...
This is why I want to give this story second place: This story came out 10 days after the company shut down. That’s a lot of reporting to have done in 10 days. Maybe some of it was for the journalist’s book (he was writing on the same subject), maybe they were already working on this for months, but that doesn’t matter because it’s news. It’s a full breakdown with a bunch of context and a deep dive into the issue.
The judges appreciated that the story laid out the facts for a community looking for answers...
The community that followed this game was looking forward to it, this is the type of journalism that it seeks and hopefully answers its questions. This is very foundational. This is why we have journalism in the first place. Like if the pharmacy down the street shuts down, the questions you have are the questions this story answers.
Despite the number of anonymous sources, the judges felt it was justified given the context, and praised the journo’s due diligence...
Especially for the timing of this story, it’s a cool postmortem of this company. It’s really in-depth. There’s a lot of unnamed sources but it totally makes sense and I think it works in this situation. He did try to talk to EA, got quotes from EA, as much as they were willing to give. So all sides were there and it’s just a really well done narrative.
As a judge succinctly put...
We need more stories like this and more reporters like this.
THIRD PLACE:
IGN Staff Walk Out After Former Employee's Sexual Harassment Claims
By Jason Schreier, Kotaku
Judges’ comments: The judges didn’t have a lot to say about this piece, but they know journalism is up to snuff when they see it...
It is written with tons of context.
Going into more detail, this judge explained exactly what they enjoyed about this piece...
So you're covering news about a thing that happened and you're talking to the person that no longer works there and you've got all these sources and its short and it's quick and it has all the context I would want to have. This is solid, quick news.
Jason Schreier, congrats on being the first journalist to earn all three placements in a single category.