I’m very familiar with this story. Weigh the actual evidence, the full stories from all witnesses, the toxicology and medical reports, all the different versions of the story told by the accuser. Mistakes by the cops don’t equal guilt, or some conspiracy to hide the truth. A highly competent, independent, eminently…

Hey Hack, you forgot to mention that these filmmakers intentionally and misleadingly edited Winston’s Wikipedia page for the sole purpose of using it as a “source” for this hatchet-job of a documentary. You also forgot to mention that these same people said concerning the content of the film “we do not need to tell…

I’m not sure you know what the word “facts” means. Or “documentary” for that matter.

So instead of dissecting a complicated case and analyzing the truths and inaccuracies of the film (i.e. journalism), you decided to post an article portraying Winston as a rapist who is trying to silence this “documentary with an apt title.”

No, the lawyers who rep Winston will sue. I don’t blame them either. The documentary is rumored to be VERY bias to the point filmmakers altered wiki accounts of the Winston case, one of the reasons it’s been pushed back so long.

Someone who was falsely accused? He was never charged. The story you heard Erica Kinsman tell in this documentary is the EIGHTH iteration of it, and it directly contradicts the evidence. The toxicology report came back negative, yet she says she was drugged. Before that, she had said she was hit on the head, but there…

It’s not that complicated. They are presenting an almost-certainly-false allegation as fact. There’s not really any sane justification for that.

It’s not like the issue needs that flashy misleading statistic for people to understand there is a problem. When you keep leading the charge with that statistic, it leaves the door wide open for people to discredit your entire documentary, article or segment. Which isn’t helping your cause to begin with.

Still, though, I don’t think bullshit is an acceptable response to bullshit.

Those professors are saying exactly what Jameis is saying. It’s hardly a documentary and more like propaganda than anything else. It’s one sided and the producer has even come out and pretty much admitted it. Don’t know if a lawsuit will do anything about it being one sided though.

It’s also not Bethesda’s job to supply Kotaku with anything, yet here we have one whiny entitled writer who doesn’t even understand his own industry

Oh my god. What a fucking soap-box, grandstand of an article. “We are so concerned that you the reader get the ‘real’ news you deserve, that we are willing to endure these kinds of harsh abuses, just to continue bringing you the reader the kind of coverage you deserve.”

gaming journalism huh?

Too many big game publishers cling to an irrational expectation of secrecy and are rankled when the press shows them how unrealistic they’re being.

Delaying Kotaku’s reviews of their games is only going to delay Kotaku’s readers purchase of said games.

I think both sides have valid arguments to make. Kotaku obviously wants to do their jobs as journalists instead of merely settling for mere PR coverage. On the flipside Kotaku has also caused countless headaches and frustration for people who are just trying to do their jobs creating entertainment for us. Both sides…

It’s also not Ubisoft and Bethesda’s job to furnish early release copies of their product to Kotaku. Bed made, time to sleep?

Also, considering past history (Gizmodo and the iPhone prototype) you’d think they might see this coming...

There’s also both.

Just like you guys can choose to ignore any developer/publisher/story you do not wish to cover.

I’m trying to figure out the tone of the article? Are you mad/angry at them for shutting you out? If so, I don’t see why. Any company (anybody) can choose whom they interact with. Just like you guys can choose to ignore any developer/publisher/story you do not wish to cover.