The "Rusty Quill Article" from the perspective of a journalism student.
So there has been a lot of stuff going around about an article made by someone that lays out some possible/probable/whatever misconduct. And there are some ways that people have been discussing it that I want to weigh in.
My Credentials: I'm in my senior year as a Journalism and Media Production major (I won't say which university because this is the internet). I've taken a lot of courses about journalism, including its ethics and writing conventions.
"Who's Afraid of Alex J. Newall?" was written by Newt Schottelkotte on Medium and edited by Tal Minear and Wil Williams. The article extensively details possible misconduct
Possible bias: Upon publishing the article, Schottelkotte made no note of being the Director of Marketing at the podcast network Fables & Folly. When this was pointed out online, Schottelkotte added an editor's note to the bottom of the article that reads
Newt Schottelkotte is currently the Marketing Director for Fable & Folly Network, but has worked as an independent creator and journalist for longer. This information was not disclosed; a disclosure has been added.
So what gives? That's pretty biased, right? Surely F&F stands to gain a lot if Rusty Quill were to shut down or lose public favor, and the author hid that fact. I, however, would take that with a heavy grain of salt. As noted Schottelkotte has worked independently in podcasting since 2016 and got their position at F&F this year. Furthermore, they've actually worked for a lot of podcast networks, also available in that link, and the emphasis on F&F made by some people may be a bit overzealous. Yes, F&F could stand to gain from RQ experiencing troubles (though more of the nebulous way that a lot of podcast networks would), but Schottelkotte overall is an independent contractor and that's probably the reason they didn't mention it in the article originally. Minear and Williams are unaffiliated with F&F.
Something else about journalistic bias: No article is ever truly unbiased. There is no way for it to be. There are some cases where bias is so blatant that the person shouldn't be put on the story, but most of the time the best people are able to do is manage their bias.
Some people have disparaged the article for trying to "cancel" RQ. To this I would merely like to point out that the article is not addressed to podcast consumers, but to podcast creators.
They do address the possible consumers later towards the end, where they attempt to dissuade people from harassing former/current employees and projects
In the final section, they do ask readers to think about supporting The Magnus Protocol Kickstarter with the clear bent of "Supporting the Kickstarter could mean that you're supporting abusive industry practices." There is clearly some biased language here, and a call to action such as this could definitely be considered "iffy" journalism, so take that as you will.
Oooooooooh the sources. Schottelkotte's article uses a few external sources, and then a number of anonymous sources that are ex-employees of RQ or people who were offered a position there. All interviewees are anonymous, and people have raised some eyebrows at this.
In journalism you are generally supposed to avoid confidential sources. They cause an obvious verification issue. If people don't know who your sources are, how do they know that you're not just making everything up?
That being said. The audio drama podcast industry is rather small. RQ itself is somewhat of a household name, and is even more of a juggernaut in a place like Britain. I can absolutely understand why these people would feel nervous about speaking publicly for fear of being blacklisted due to being considered "hard to work with" or "disloyal" or fear of backlash from RQ themselves. Take these sources with a grain of salt, but also understand that there are reasonable grounds for these sources being confidential.
I encourage people to go read the article, hence why I linked it at the beginning. Something that I would ask for people who point out the issues with sources is to demand accountability from RQ. Demand that they respond (As Schottelkotte asked them to do at least once, possibly several times. It's a bit unclear in the article). Look at the facts that we do know and ask yourself that even if they don't directly verify claims do they at least line up with them? Journalism is meant to inform, but there can also be more beyond a dichotomy "this article is can be trusted" vs. "this article cannot be trusted." Use this as an opportunity to ask questions.
vaporwave
theartofmadeline
stormborns
areudirty
ellievsbear
2087
izzy806
