Reporting critically in a cliquey environment

Heya! No need for a long preamble here: I’ll be answering reader questions from time to time in a floaty, more free-ranging format, starting now!

If you’ve got questions for me — about video games, esports, journalism, criticism, any of my previous writing, etc. — drop me a line! (A list of good places to reach me is at the end of this post). I won’t have all the answers, and some of the responses will lean more on intuition than experience; mostly, I’ll just try to be helpful.

Q:

Regional esports scenes are often filled with drama, shady behavior, knotty connections and overlapping and oft-conflicting interests. Because the scene I’m in is highly cliquey, I’m worried that any one critical report might make it harder for me to do my job on a day-to-day basis, or, at the worse end of the spectrum, that it might land me and my sources in legal trouble. How can a journalist properly carry out their job, knowing that a negative article might result in them being blacklisted?¹

A:

This is a really good question, and there’s a lot to dig into here.

My immediate instinct is this: Don’t be dissuaded from serious work by a blacklist or reprisals that don’t yet exist. Your concern may be totally warranted, and you should trust your gut and consider your specific circumstances carefully. Still, sometimes implied ambient threats like the one you’re describing are effective because they discourage people from speaking up, not because there’s any actual heft behind those threats.

I also want to address the question of legal risk (though I’d caution that none of what I’m about to say should be construed as legal advice lol). If you think the story you’re chasing is serious, take it seriously. It’s easy to talk yourself down from a story: Oh, this esports stuff is kind of silly. Who cares? It’s just video games. But if you’ve unearthed some kind of malfeasance or bad behavior, don’t let yourself minimize it. Take the precautions that you might imagine a reporter on a more [air quote] serious beat [end air quote] would take. Reach out to legal experts, press freedom advocates or relevant academics in the country you’re working in; talk to them about the risks you might assume as a journalist seeking to publish X, Y or Z. If you’re fearful for your sources, ask about the issues that may arise for them, too. These experts don’t need to know anything about esports. In fact, it may be better if they don’t.

There’s a pertinent example close to this newsletter: When an attorney representing a company Jacob Wolf was investigating reached out threatening a lawsuit and demanding that Jacob delay publication, Jacob got in touch with a First Amendment group at a university that worked with him to ensure the story was publishable. Jacob ran the article, and — surprise, surprise — the legal threat never seriously materialized.

I would also note that the above advice applies to the content of your work too, and not just the question of whether it’s publishable. In 2022, I wrote a story in which multiple people who had worked for the esports organization TSM alleged that they had been illegally misclassified as contractors rather than employees. When I began reporting, I didn’t know much about employment law; to ensure I had the story right, I sought out multiple lawyers with relevant expertise. The point of those conversations wasn’t to sound smart in front of a bunch of lawyers, and I didn’t just want them to reassure me that what I knew was right. Instead, I wanted to know all of the ways in which I might be wrong: What are my blindspots? What is it that I don’t know about the subject that might undermine my story?

If you’re concerned that something in your work might lead to blowback, you need to ask yourself similar questions. Learn your subject inside and out, anticipate questions that may arise from your reporting, and make sure you know the answers. This should be true of all published work, but it bears repeating. (To that end, I think in certain circumstances, “looming blacklist” can be — !!! within reason !!! — a useful frame for journalistic work. We all know the classic line: "You come at the King, you best not miss." If ever there was a motivation to bring your A-game to a story, surely it’s “If I get this wrong, my career as I know it is over.”)

But also, there’s a good chance that in a cliquey environment, everyone has already observed or heard about the things you intend to cover, and they’re just waiting for someone to say something. (*cough*) You shouldn’t bank on it, and there are obviously risks to being the first-mover on a big, complicated story. But that’s also the work. It might even be why you got into journalism in the first place. Your job empowers you to be a voice for those who can’t speak. If your coverage is fair and true, what the subjects think about it is generally beside the point. (Though you should obviously seek comment from the person or people you believe have acted improperly and give them ample time to respond and present their case.)

And if the worst comes to pass and you find yourself blacklisted for your work, consider it a badge of honor. These things are never as intractable as they seem, and a big part of the job is navigating around the obstacles set in your way. As you seek new sources and connections, you may be surprised by the fruitful avenues that open up.

That’s all I’ve got. If you’re a media professional or have some kind of input on the question above, I’d love to hear from you! With your permission, I’d gladly share your response as an addendum in the next mailbag newsletter.

Cheers.

Thanks for reading ReaderGrev! Consider sharing it with a friend, on Discord, Twitter, LinkedIn, or even a subreddit where folks might appreciate it. Word of mouth helps this newsletter grow!

If you have a tip, I can be reached on Twitter at @LeaderGrev (my DMs are open) or via email at mikhail (at) readergrev (dot) com.

1. I’ve paraphrased the question for clarity’s sake. If you’re reaching out to me with a question and have concerns about how things are phrased — maybe you’d prefer me to paraphrase, or alternatively, would rather I not — just let me know!