Goods and the historical moment of video game journalism

After reviewing the concepts in the first few chapters of Communication Ethics Literacy--including definitions of philosophy and application of communication--I felt compelled to draw comparisons between Arnett, et al.'s foundation and a communicative industry that I'm well-versed in: web journalism. Specifically, I write news, reviews, and other informative and entertaining content about video games. As an unpaid amateur, I only reach an audience of 1.3 million monthly readers--for the biggest players in game journalism, the number of "listeners" is far greater. The stakes I feel as an informer, with a traditional good of distanced emotions, honesty, and independence from corporate interests, are greatly magnified for writers reaching 20 million or more monthly readers. What's particularly fascinating isn't the stratospheric difference in responsibility between myself and "speakers" with larger audience--it's how the goods they honor, rather than being a concentrated, intensified version of what I follow, are often dramatically different. Are daily page views or bounce rate of greater importance? Should interviews be treated with pragmatism or entertaining informality? What specific values guide this application? Credibility? Honesty? Humor? A desire to not waste the readers' time, or a hunger to hold their attention longer than the competition?

The historical moment of video game journalism, in which implicit, unspoken contention over values is framed by a narrative of up-and-coming YouTubers, fan communities, and the "citizen reporters" of forums, inspires and influences these innumerable goods. Small blog sites, met with great success as few as six or seven years ago, struggle to stay afloat as advertising rates fall and access to stories is increasingly met with public relations resistance that evaporates when big outlets come knocking. From this single example--evidence of this historical moment's contention--spawn countless goods. To build upon Chapter 2's concepts: The philosophy that values site traffic and profit above all else is applied in click-bait headlines and short, trite news stories. The philosophy that values personal fulfillment is applied in articles that reflect the interests of the writer, who has little regard for being first or competing for the eyes of a single audience. The philosophy that values exhaustive journalism, exposition of untold stories, and the voices of game creators is applied in long-form features that reflect alarming hours of toil. Right now, the most exciting thing about this class for me is not knowing which is "correct"--and recognizing that the concept of "correct" may not exist for communication.