Corrupt Games Journalism

[Sotha]

I think this needs its own thread or the comment system will be overrun.

 

Gaming journalism: http://www.rpgcodex....sm-drama.77234/

 

 

 

Also, http://botherer.org/...-last-few-days/

Holy moly, that's almost as bad as academia.

 

 

Game journalists don't like when their corruption is exposed, whistleblower has to quit job over legal threats.

 

 

Long version:

http://www.rpgcodex....ent.php?id=8579

 

A short excerpt to quickly get an idea what's going on:

In the same thread, an anonymous journalist, nicknamed Dawg, explains why he can be trusted to remain unstained by publisher influence even while he's wallowing in a colossal muddy pool of it; ‘I'm a VIDYA GAME JOURNALIST for an European gaming website (which I shall not name for obvious reasons). I've had my fair share of PR events, previews and such. During one of the previews, we dined at an expensive restaurant with the PR guy from a publisher I will not name (again, for obvious reasons). It's fun and all, but at the end of the day, I just care about the game and I write my opinion about that game. Sure, dining at a fancy restaurant is fun and all, but it shouldn't cloud your judgement. If they want to give me free food, that's their decision. It's not hard to still write an unbiased (although every review is subjective because of OPINIONS) article after getting all sorts of things from them.’

 

My suspicion is that a number of journalists share Dawg’s perspective; that it’s perfectly acceptable to enjoy the attentions and the courtship rituals and the little gifts provided by the industry, because like Penelope refusing her army of suitors or the goddamned Batman, you’re basically incorruptible, immune to external influence, and the gaming public should just be able to trust you about that. But the logic of this deluded self-belief, this talk of, 'Yes, I receive free goodies and I enjoy a cordial relationship with PR reps, who court me as if I was a potential business client or someone thinking about buying a timeshare, rather than a supposedly detached commentator on their products, but that's never influenced my critical judgement. I mean, I'd know if it did, right?' doesn't even stand up to scrutiny in a vacuum, since none of the luxuries are necessary for the journalist to do their job; the risk of being unduly influenced simply doesn't need to exist in the first place. The PR rep has no reason to offer these perks other than as tokens of small-scale, soft bribery, and the journalist has no reason to accept them other than being a greedy, unprofessional sucker (hey, we're all human, right?!), someone who thinks that if he knows it's a honeytrap he can go ahead and marry the Russian prostitute anyway without fear of being compromised. And when a group of professional reporters (some of the best ones in their field, according to the GMAs!), like a shit version of the Stanford Prison Experiment, prove under laboratory conditions that their ethical code and good sense can be swayed in thirty seconds by exactly one Playstation 3, when professional reporters shout down and censor one of their own for naming names, when major publications refuse to cover misconduct in their own profession, the idea of games journalism as a medium being just fine and dandy where industry influence and peer-to-peer cronyism is involved becomes utterly laughable; an infant bawling that it doesn't need nappies but continuing to wet the fucking bed all the same.

 

What those journalists who count themselves as honest have to accept is that what they see as an unfair, cynical caricature of their vocation is not the result of wild conspiracy theorising and groundless internet paranoia on the part of the gaming public, but stems from the collective perception of a system that has quite visibly been formed around a particularly wealthy and disproportionately powerful industry with an eye towards manipulating, wooing, and managing a particularly inchoate and frequently impecunious press - some of whom would apparently be delighted to be invited over onto the other side of the fence anyway. Even more worryingly, it's a system that continues, despite the protests and the eye-rolling, to give the outward impression of being compromised, frequently to the point of absurdity, from the inbred closeness of that relationship. Defending their profession might be their first reaction to all of this mess, but regulating their profession is the only sensible reaction. If gaming journalists and editors want to enjoy genuine credibility amongst their public, untainted by any suspicion of misbehaviour, they’re going to have to demonstrate that they're bold enough to take three steps back from that system, that they have proper visible safeguards in place to maintain a healthy, professional distance between themselves and the manufacturers of the product they’re supposed to be commenting on, and that any misconduct will be recognised, publicly acknowledged, and stamped out, whether by whistleblowers or by watchdogs.

[demagogue]

At this point I live so much by academic & policy articles, I have a very dim view of journalism generally. Journalism is there for me to have a rough idea of what's going on without having to do real research on it, and I just assume it'll probably misrepresent the bulk of what it's saying anyway ... which is fine when I don't care too much about the thing.

 

And then video gaming journalism is just at the bottom of the barrel. It's not that I think it's impossible for them to be respectable. The kind of criticism I'd respect would be like the commentary on novels and cultural works you'd get from the New York Intellectuals in the 30s-50s or something, Lionel Trilling et al. They knew how to connect great works with all these cultural currents going on. But game companies are not making games like that, and commentators are rarely reviewing games in those terms... The whole part about the conflict of interest -- close to the reputation radio DJs have, or used to have, of being blatantly paid off to play records -- just seems like some extra sludge at the bottom of the barrel that I didn't have much hope for to begin with. I'd almost say it confirms my suspicions, but again I'd have to care more about it to even feel that much.

 

The catch is that occasionally you'll find a really thoughtful and enlightening article on a game and it'll remind you that it's still quite in the realm of the possible. I'll still read it to collect these little hidden jewels, and often I'll download them and keep a little folder of them, anytime I want to actually be challenged to think interesting things about games. So the potential is definitely there for me. It's not like I'm so cynical to think thoughtful game criticism is just beyond the reach of humans, though I'm leaving open it may be beyond the reach of people trying to make a living off of it.

 

-------------------------

Edit: Here's what Aerothorn had to say, our own "insider" game journalist.

I've been unimpressed by some of Totilo's comments in the past' date=' but this one is simply ridiculous (and horrendous). I can't get into his head. The implication here is that covering this story would not be 'good game journalism,' and says that they won't bother covering the story because it's the "same tired old nonsense." I mean, I'm just ranting; I don't need to parse for you guys why this is shameful. You end up with the same issue as Wainwright; I suspect Totilo is on the up and up, but when you dismiss concerns about the relationship between PR and editorial, it leads to questions about your own journalistic ethics.[/quote']

 

[stumpy]

I dont know if it is corruption, but I do know that when games companies are promoting games a lot of extra's go with the game to journalists to give them a good write up, but its like that in all promotion of goods, even washing powder the company there would send extras to a journalist writing about what a washing powder is like.

 

What I dont think would be exceptable though is a journalist being paid (as in a cash payment) by a games companies pr department to give the game a score of 10/10, thats more along the lines of corruption. Although I think that has been done a few times in the past, when I've played a few games that have gotten scores of 9/10 and then the game turns out to either play itself, or so full of bugs it crashes every 2 minutes, or wont even run (even if specs on box say game is playable).

[i30817]

Edited October 30, 2012 by i30817

[Tels]

Wow, so covering this story is not "journalism", but "unboxing 500$ worth of Halo stuff" is?

 

Anyway, I lost almost any trust in the game magazines years ago. Just consider how nobody ever covers TDM (or when they do, w/o even the most basic fact checking so they get things completely wrong), but when RPS covers TDM, they all suddenly "cover" it (by copying the RPS article badly). The whole "industry" smells of elderberries.

[Melan]

Even beyond press kits, freebies and good old-fashioned palm-greasing, there are at least three institutional reasons there is systematic corruption in games journalism:

1. One, review sites are dependent on the companies to supply them with exclusive information and review copies. Instead of good critical discussion (which is real journalism), game sites are dependent on being early and preferably in the inner circle which gets exclusive info. The needs of this news cycle, and especially early access to commercial titles, generate a race where only being a well-regarded insider will get you timely information, thus readers, and thus ad revenue. If you write "wrong" reviews, you will find that these channels will dry up and the site will lose out in the fight for readers.
   
2. To make things worse, game companies are also major advertisers on review sites and in print magazines. Lose their favour and lose their money. There is a strong, strong incentive to keep them satisfied.
   
3. Third, games journalism is mainly run on the labour of cheap interns/early career people who lack professional experience and are more easily influenced by PR and flattery. Analytical skills (to properly discuss the advantages or failings of a game, or to see a gimmick or pandering for what it is) take time to build, and by the time they get that, they are already too old for the business. The inexperienced also lack a reputation which would let them get away with making unfavourable verdicts, and which would protect them if they get sacked. Right now, the system can make someone a star reviewer, but just as easily take that away (since it does not come from the person, but those who finance him/her).
   

The way to break this circle of corruption require that review sites should supply good, well-researched, in-depth articles, and avoid a dependence on publishers by buying their games instead of getting them for free. In return, customers should accept that what they get will not always be timely, it will not be exclusive, and it may not always pander to their preferences. Which is actually how good journalism often is: harder to make, harder to get, and not always comfortable reading.

[Melan]

One more thing:

4. The way the Internet is "free" is contributing to the problem. Enormously. Good journalism costs money. The more of that money comes from YOU, the reader, the more important your interests as a consumer are. The more of that money comes from advertisements placed by the companies making the products being reviewed... you get the picture.

 

Topical:

[Diego]

I missed completely this discussion. Was this in the status update (AKA the forum chat)?

 

Anyway, not sure why but I always assumed most of these reviews are just advertising. I think it's the way it's done; they don't sound like critiques! critiques are annoying, they never like anything, they nitpick! it's almost like they know how to make it better themselves. The funny thing is that I never thought about this, I just instinctively never followed any big game review site and my reader is pretty much indie blogs and some exceptions, like Yahtzee (which completely fits into the critique stereotype).

[Sotha]

I have something similar. Sometimes, very rarely, I've checked a video review on some big game review site where everyone is "Oh, So Excited about the new game and they can do anything in there and oh, it is awesome and great." You know that very american commercial style which sounds oh so false, artificial and insults your intelligence is some annoying way.

[Psychomorph]

Mafia.

 

Always knowing that, never trusting anything but my own experience. Sad to see people believing some stupid game mag review.

[i30817]

 

'emotional, beautiful look at Master Chief's struggles in war'

 

(kotaku)

[i30817]

 

https://itunes.apple.com/us/app/halo-4-king-hill-fuled-by/id565679301?mt=8

 

Edited November 3, 2012 by i30817

[Loa4ever]

This is a problem nowadays I'm afraid we gamers will have extra careful, this greedy bastards plus publishers are destroying gaming today. And for the worst of all people buy this guys without thinking. But hey... Kotaku is not alone in this how about IGN? Escampist? and so many others?