On WAN Show today, I’ll be doing a segment outlining some of the ethical and journalistic issues with your content that I have observed personally, and that I have seen raised by the community. I will be especially focused on how they have impacted your coverage of me and my company, because I am most familiar with the relevant facts, but these issues appear to run deeper, and I believe they could be impacting your ability to be objective overall - something I know the community values greatly.
There will be a particular focus on your stance around ‘right of reply’ since it affects accuracy so much, and there will also be some discussion around misquoting (as in the recent Honey video) and your inability to address your clear conflicts of interest when it comes to covering an entity that you have chosen to view as a direct competitor, rather than a collaborator or peer, as you did in the past.
If you have some comments and evidence on what break-downs caused your inaccurate coverage of us in the past, why you seem to personally find it so challenging to cover us objectively, and what steps you plan to make to rectify these issues in the future, I would be happy to include your thoughts in the segment.
The segment will also include the following letter that is addressed to you:
Steve,
We do our best around here to do what we believe is right, and to stand up for the consumer. That leads to us doing journalist-ey things sometimes.. and I understand basic journalistic principles, but I’m not a journalist and I have never claimed to be. The reason I am sending this to you, then, is not because I am some journalist reaching out for comment, but out of respect, and because I was once a collaborator and supporter, and I hope to be again someday.
For that to happen, though, I do have some requests. Everyone is human, and we all make mistakes, but I believe that for you to become the journalist you aspire to be, there are some errors in both your approach and in your coverage that are large enough to merit correction. Obviously, not everything needs to be pulled. Methods aside, it’s clear you were right about a lot of things in August ‘23.. But it’s also clear that between the conjecture, editorialization, and what I hope are simply errors rather than lies, a number of retractions are in order - both on that piece, and your other coverage. This isn’t just for me, but also for your community, who looks to you to do the right thing.
As for the personal side of things, I can’t ask you to like me. You clearly disagree, on a personal, MORAL basis, with some things I do. Which ones are real, and which ones are performative, I’m not sure anymore, but it doesn't really matter. That’s your personal compass, and you gotta follow it.
What DOES matter, is treating others in the industry with respect, and being prepared to be held accountable the same way you hold others accountable. Traditional journalism, while a competitive battlefield, has no absolute authority, and is quite often a brotherhood with shared goals that hold each other to mutually-agreed-upon standards, not a brutal free-for-all. So, as part of being a contributing member of the tech brotherhood, I expect you to be open to critique in the same way that you expect others to be open to critique.
I also expect that if you cover us publicly in the future, you do so with honesty, impartiality, and proper disclosure of your numerous conflicts of interest. With that said, regardless of your motives in ‘23, your actions DID served as a wake-up call for us to supercharge the changes we were slow-rolling. For that, I’m thankful. Now it’s time for your wake up call, should you choose to accept it.
If you CAN’T put your biases aside, simply recusing yourself IS an option, but it might require some further retractions, since you’ve claimed in the past that covering us is very important because of our business’ relevance to the tech industry. If that’s no longer the case, then any snipes that relied on that for justification probably need to go, too.
I understand that you may not WANT to rebuild this bridge, but I still want you to know that while Gamers Nexus LLC is every bit as much of a for-profit business as Linus Media Group Incorporated, I, Linus Sebastian the individual, still see you, Stephen Burke the individual, as a colleague and potential future collaborator. Cuz the reality is, personal feelings aside, we both fight for the same team - the consumers and our community - a community that is stronger if we just cut the tribalism and work together.
I have always said that a rising tide lifts all ships, and we ALL benefit from more interest in our hobby and more contributors to our community. I have always encouraged our viewers to follow multiple outlets and get multiple perspectives - including yours. You used to tell me you agree with those things. I hope you can again, because this is going to be especially important as we all navigate the weirdness around benchmarking ML-assisted cards like the upcoming 50-series..
So in summary, I welcome valid, constructive, TWO-WAY feedback, but when I told you a year ago I had no interest in public sniping matches, that was the truth.. Our community in tech used to stand out as one that embraced collaboration and rejected ‘beef’. I want that again.
I chose to make my statement as a segment on the WAN Show and a Clip on our clips channel rather than a dedicated video in hopes of finding a balance between sharing my side and igniting drama for views.
Can we forget the past now and move forward?
See you at Computex,
Linus
