Structure

Polygon’s ethics statement contains nine segments. In the following, each of these areas is individually compared with the corresponding guidance in journalism ethics guides. As there are multiple guidelines available, the respective source is linked along with the observation or recommendation.

Conduct — test result: fail

Similar to most journalistic ethic guidelines, Polygon starts its own guide by talking about conduct. Unlike the guidelines I had access to, Polygon does not explain its stance towards ‘truth’ or ‘balance in reporting’ in this area but instead discusses travel expenses and Kickstarter campaigns. In other words, while major media outlets like Reuters or the New York Times use this section to explain how they go about their work, Polygon is talking about money. As it stands, the conduct of Polygon is defined as monetary in nature — not journalistic.

It would be recommended to update this section to reflect Polygon’s stance on reporting ‘truth’ by applying a balanced view to their coverage on video games (and if desired the surrounding culture). Obviously, this would also require the outlet to embrace this sort of conduct in their reporting. A great starting point for such a re-write of the conduct section would be the NYT/Reuters handbooks mentioned above or the ASNE principles on ethics.

There is another issue in the conduct section, which allows Polygon’s staff to donate to Kickstarter campaigns without disclosure of the resulting financial ties to the project. And while being a backer alone might not represent a conflict of interest, even perceived conflicts should be disclosed (as recommended by the SPJ). Review scores — test result: pass

This section specifies Polygon’s policy to not share ratings with game developers or publishers prior to releasing the respective review. All of these practices are aligned with common ethical conduct. Linking to the Polygon ‘About Reviews’ scoring guidelines would be helpful to have additional context. Conflict — test result: fail

Avoidance of conflict of interest is at the heart of all calls for ethics in games journalism. It is troubling to read through this section in the context of what led to this audit and #GamerGate in general. The first paragraph of the conflict section references financial ties, prior employment and close relationships as conditions for recusing oneself — unless otherwise stated on an authors ‘profile’ page. While this sounds reasonable, it should be more strict. An authors profile page should not be sufficient as a universal disclosure mechanism. Instead disclosures should be repeated in each article if relevant. In addition, this section is potentially conflicting with the Kickstarter non-disclosure treatment laid out in the conduct section above (it is also questionable, why the Kickstarter segment would not be part of this section).

But most importantly, this section is in direct conflict to what the second paragraph of this section states: “Polygon staff are permitted to contribute to Patreon campaigns for members of the video game industry […]”. This is unacceptable. Reuters puts it best by stating “Never pay for a story and never accept a bribe”. And while paying for a story may not be at the heart of an authors intention by contributing to a Patreon campaign, it is perception that would become reality in this instance. Also, this reflects an ‘avoidable’ conflict of interest per the SPJ guidelines — an author can just not cover a subject they financially support or stop supporting the subject and disclose the prior relationship.

There is a difference in the stance on Kickstarter and Patreon as the reader may have noticed. The distinction follows the logic of buying a product vs. donating to a creator. While the intention of supporting a Kickstarter is directly linked to a separable deliverable of a customer (e.g. a copy of the game) a supporter on Patreon is merely a benefactor for no visible and separable exchange. As a result, the Patreon supporter undermines the own as well as the sources’ independence in the journalistic process.

The recommendation on this element is to disallow all avoidable conflicts of interest (like Patreon) and have a strict disclosure policy on unavoidable conflicts. Sources — test result: pass (with recommendations)

A summary of how Polygon does and does not interact with its sources. It is very difficult to derive anything valuable from this segment — it does sound positive, however, it is short. Additional information would be viewed favorably most of all regarding sources as ‘co-creators of content’. It is recommended (e.g. by the SPJ ethics guide) to “prominently label” such cooperation. Corrections — test result: pass

Two sentences on accuracy in Polygon’s reporting and their intent to correct stories after publication in case of errors. As for the section on conduct, this could be more specific — it is not possible to understand what Polygon’s intention as journalists are. Advertising — test result: pass (with recommendations)

A solid component of Polygon’s ethics statement. Segregation of duties seems to be in place as the advertising department is independent of the journalistic process. Specifically labeling infomercials as well as the disclosure of commission-based revenue is appreciated. Polygon should feel encouraged to attract broader advertisement to avoid dependence on their subject (game publishers and developers). An example of such advertising strategies is Polygon’s competitor IGN. Giveaways — test result: pass

This is a short description of giveaways and contests Polygon may organize. They do not outline specific rules, however, mention that those would be posted along with the respective contest details. Also, Polygon mentions that a giveaway would not inherently reflect an endorsement of a product. Professional appearances — test result: pass

This paragraph explains that Polygon staff are allowed to appear on other media and accept travel expense reimbursement (if the media outlet is not connected to a game company or any other company Polygon covers). This is a reasonable practice. Product samples for reviews — test result: pass

Similar to other gaming media, Polygon may receive sample copies of games for review. They specify that they do not conditionally accept such sample copies if the condition is to publish a review of the game. Polygon goes on to explain they would adhere to embargo dates if given and that some games could be also purchased by them for review. Polygon deserves credit in this area as each of their reviews mentions the way they obtained the game.

Statement gaps

As mentioned in the ethics statement review, there are gaps in the document. Most notably, Polygon does not share their approach to (ethical) journalism in their Conduct segment. This is especially disappointing as they seem to have a ‘mission’ — they should feel empowered to share this with their readership.

Additionally, Polygon does not specify how they handle the discussion happening in their comments section. It is not clear whether conflicting views are welcome or what level of hostility would be required to be removed from a discussion. To quote the SPJ once more journalists should “Support the open and civil exchange of views, even views they find repugnant” — Polygon does not give a view on this subject.

Thirdly, a commitment to balance in news coverage is missing from the ethics statement. This would also go hand-in-hand with objection of single-source reporting especially on gaming culture coverage.

These are just examples of gaps to address; however, these would go a long way towards a more comprehensive and ethical policy. The examples can be cross-referenced in the sources I linked throughout the review.

Conclusion

In its current form, Polygon’s ‘Ethics Statement’ is disappointing. It does not get the basics right. Significant gaps in the areas of journalistic conduct, balanced reporting and dialog among its readership as well as violations of generally accepted ethics policies were observed. And while Polygon does deserve credit for their disclosure policy surrounding the acquisition or provision of review code — that is not enough. Polygon has to challenge itself to clearly articulate their stance on ethical journalism and stop facilitating financial ties in between their reporters and (potential) subjects. Polygon has to understand that all avoidable conflicts of interest are just that — avoidable.