The Value of Insider Reporting

On Oct. 17, DeKay announced on twitter that the recently sidelined Astralis in-game leader Finn "karrigan" Andersen would be added to FaZe Clan before the start of ELEAGUE. His report was released two days before HLTV’s “official” confirmation earlier today. This high-profile example and the increasing prominence of DeKay’s reporting generally has forced the Counter-Strike: Global Offensive scene to grapple with some frequently most asked questions in the domain of esports reporting.



How can we trust presented information to be accurate when the reporter only cites sources rather than presenting screenshots or named witnesses? How “worthwhile” or “valuable” is such reporting in the first place? How earnest are the intentions of journalists who make these reports?



The most common and franky inane criticism of esports journalism is that any given journalist simply writes based on “speculation” rather than evidence and additionally hides behind false unanimous “sources” to give off some semblance of credibility. The rigor of such complaints are low but it's not hard to imagine why such sentiments exist.



Esports games are far more complete in their presentation of information than their mainstream competitors. There is no indetectable skirmish happening off-screen. There are not under-the-breathe insults hidden from the sideline mic. Everything in the server in captured. Social media and steaming extend that transparency. These tools can make private feuds public and interpersonal conflict into communal entertainment. In a game and scene that is seemingly transparent, it might be much harder to accept behind the scenes, off-screen happenings that are reported without definitive “proof.”



However, the use of anonymous “sources” within mainstream journalism is far from controversial. It’s a highly standard practice used to protect sources of information from the repercussions of their divulsions. Anonymous sourcing has been abused on rare occasion by individuals such as Stephen Glass in the late 90s for his own apparent personal gain, but generally falsified reports are rare. The integrity of reporters or the robustness of news organization’s oversight will usually be proven in time, and in the specific case of roster move-based reports, the legitimacy of that reporting can easily be measured by his or her track record. A poor reporting record will surely kill your reputation faster than any hapless reddit mob.



But, even if these reports are accurate, there is still some contention as to whether they have “value.” Earlier this afternoon, Tomi "lurppis" Kovanen questioned the validity of such reporting, tweeting, “It's not like it's hard to find out the coming moves if you know anyone in the scene, I just don't understand ‘reporting’ for personal gain.” It wasn’t an uncommon sentiment; his statement was retweeted by both Lucas Aznar Miles of HLTV and the broadcast analyst Janko "YNk" Paunović. Lurppis went even further in a later tweet, which read, “I think it's morally wrong and I strive to act according to my beliefs, so I take no part in it -- can only wish others didn't either.”



Such detractors may argue that the reporting of roster moves doesn’t have much intrinsic “worth,” suggesting the reporter is simply engaged in scalping traffic by frontrunning the official announcement with their own reporting. It’s true, in a way; if the sum “value” of a roster related news story is only measured in amount of internet traffic generated, then the esports journalist is simply diverting traffic away from organizations towards his or her own report. But there is a less obvious “value” created by releasing information before the official announcement.



On Aug. 28, DeKay announced on Twitter that Damian "daps" Steele would be removed from OpTic instead of Peter "stanislaw" Jarguz. OpTic’s official dismissal of Daps didn’t come until Sept. 27. DeKay’s August announcement put out credible public information a month ahead of schedule, thereby providing information that would have been absent or obscured otherwise. The advanced release of information is helpful in the short term. In that stretch of time, other teams could have used that information to make more informed roster moves or model the strengths of the scene and OpTic specifically more accurately. Scouting reports going into Northern Arena Toronto or key roster moves in the month of September could have both been blustered by this reporting. Markets operate more efficiently and effectively when all participants hold more complete information.



But what about the other lingering accusations in Lurppis’s tweets? Are roster leaks morally apprehensible because these reporters can personally benefit from it?



The often initial, and I would argue misleading, response to this suggestion is concerns are invalid because these reporters are underpaid or even unpaid. “Personal gain” doesn't have to be financial or immediate. We have seen that individuals in the past, such as “Yee_lmao1,” who have leaked or released information and received some degree of notoriety in the aftermath (humorously, Yee_lmao1 also retweeted Lurppis original criticism). For some, even that recognition has some value or utility even if it affords them no direct financial benefit. Additionally, building up a reputation or even a fan base through these reports can eventually lead to more views on monetized content or a relatively lucrative position on a website or broadcast in the distant future.



However, if you accept earlier arguments that such reporting does have value by giving market participants and the viewing public more accurate information, then the idea that receiving some benefit (delayed, non-financial, or otherwise) is morally reprehensible seems unfair. In a capitalist system, the actions of individuals are rewarded in proper proportion to the how society values those efforts. If your work or actions have intrinsic value, why would it be immoral to benefit in some way?



Of course, every piece of personal or insider information does not have the right to be in the public domain, even if you can profit from it, and it might not always be plainly clear which stories deserve to see sunlight. Sure, it’s easy to trash contemporary tabloids with their incessant exploration of the personal lives of public figures, and we can all laugh some seasonal rating rush like Tebowmania, but in this very specific case, it’s hard to argue that accurate, up-to-date information about critical roster moves provides no value to the scene, and those efforts aren't at all worthy of recognition.

Reply · Report Post