Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Wrestlevania

Honesty & Integrity

Recommended Posts

So what now, what with the advertorial prolapse over at GameSpot highlighting just how fickle we - as consumers - are supposed to be?

N'gai Croal highlighted well the fragility of the publisher ad-supported games media in terms of its vulnerability to "supposed" PR manipulation, citing the only truly independent sources for Video game reportage are those publications who do not rely on gert stacks of games publisher's green for sustenance.

(As a side note, I don't agree with Croal's citation of MTV as a reliable source as they've recently made video games coverage a core part of their business. In no small part thanks to the captive audience they can offer up to publishers.)

But, before we completely derail on the Newsweek article, let me be clear: I'm not interested in dissecting this one particular article here on Thumbs. It's just a small part of the diagnosis, not the problem itself. I want people to talk about how they feel about the whole escapade.

Personally, as a reader of computer and Video game magazines since the Spectrum era, this has become glaringly obvious to me over time. You could sum it up simply as this:

"Don't play with matches at the petrol station."

But that discredits and sweeps aside the far wider issue; is there ever really a way the enthusiast press can ever get away from this parasitic relationship with publishers?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I know that back when I was hyped up for Kane & Lynch (they made Hitman!), I saw the immense ads at Gamespot and wondered what it would look like if the game sucked, and how could they possibly avoid influence from advertisers. Now I know.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So, could Gamespot, after developing Trax and the accurate metrics, be said tohave been hoisted by their own petard? After offering these services to publishers, it has grown beyond their control.

This begs the question, "Where can we get accurate and non-biased reviews of new games?". Can we rely on blogs and forums more? Well, yes, providing we are careful of believing shills. There are gaming sites that individuals prefer to visit over others, ones that people feel match thier expectations. For me, Eurogamer currently fills that place, along with a gaming community I'm part of that has had members back since the wireplay modem dayy, through blueyonder and out the other side, and know I can trust how those people view games because I am familiar with thier historical posts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've been writing for two Dutch gaming magazines for years now ([N]Gamer and GMR). Both feature plenty of advertisements (which is the only way to make it feasible), but I've never, ever heard a beep of pressure from my editors. Or a rebuttal. Granted, there has never really been a lot of controversy, but we've been pretty strict before, and that has never put us into problems.

In general, the problem is of course that there is an inescapable tug-of-war between the publisher and the editor. Most gaming press simply can't exist without sponsoring, so it's a necessary evil. In the best case scenario, publisher will stay their hand and take any fair critique as motivation and a lesson. Of course, power brings temptation...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Marek wrote an editorial about how things are handled at AdventureGamers. It seems like a good system - the reviewers are completely cut off from the publishers, who are handled by the editor. If the editor is any good, the reviewers will never hear of the publishers' desires. Of course, if he isn't...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If the editor is any good, the reviewers will never hear of the publishers' desires. [/i]

I think that's unfair.

So u are the editor and owner of a medium sized gaming website, the site has moved beyond being amateur and you pay your writers for content, u don't make much money but u keep your head above water and you are doing what u love. U have a good sized but not wahussive (Scottish for very big, thanks bob) group of readers. One publisher has a big advertising deal with you that gives u a large chunk of your income, the publisher can pull out whenever it wants. From the publisher's point of view the deal is worth it but not essential.

Then you have a draft review of their latest big game that they have sunk millions into and it gets slated, from the publisher's point of view it would no longer be worth their while to advertise on your site, the negative review has greater influence on the readership than the adverts. The editor also knows that finding a replacement for the publisher will be difficult (especially with the growing oligarchic nature of publishing).

So the editor has a choice, sacrifice your editorial integrity and edit the review so that it focuses on the good a bit more than the bad and increment the score a bit, then you can continue with your site with most of the content being uncompromised, u just have to sell your soul for your publisher's games.

Or you can keep your integrity the publisher pulls out, the site is no longer financially viable, u become amateur again, the quantity and quality of your the site is likely to drop hugely ( far beyond the level of the slightly compromised site)

I guess you could try not reviewing it at all, but this could make the publisher unhappy and cause them to pull out and if this became the way everyone dealt with the problem, “no review” would become a kiss of death equal to that of a poor review.

So what does a "good" editor do, oversee the death of his livelihood and passion (as well as the livelihood of his writers) your compromise himself slightly.

I know this is a highly hypothetical situation but it shows it's not as simple as a good or bad editor. A very large sight has the advantage that it has bargaining power and it is probably more important for the publisher to stay on their good side. Where as the medium sized companies have very little bargaining power when dealing with the publishers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Fuck that Ginger. The readers expect a certain level of objectivity. If you can't deliver that then you deserve to go under.

TO quote Roschache:

NO compromise, even in the face of oblivion.

watchmen7hv.jpg

(OK, lets not go ito what happened to him in the end).

Edit: also this:

051503.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If your business model hinges that much on one particular "customer", then your business model is ultimately fucked anyway.

So you can either go down fighting, have the respect of your peers and invariably be rehired for something else. Or you can take it up the arse and publish lies, assuming you can live with the shame of it.

There is a third option, though: recognise this situation before it gets out of hand in the first place. Or hire someone with some business acumen to actually do this sort of thing for you, even if it's just part time.

It's this sort of amateur attitude to business, coupled with the excuse-making, that has people laughing at the Video game industry (and media) in the first place.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Re: your scenario, Ginger: I think the editor has already failed if he's put his site into a situation where it will fold if one single advertiser pulls out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

With that scenario you end up like Gamespy, a place I trusted, bar reviews on EA projects or Nokia ones. Gamespy are so horrifically biased when it comes to them that it makes me sad.

Shame really as I do like the Planet Fargo articles.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok it was an over simplified hypothetical situation designed to show how the editor might be pulled in different directions. I think one problem with the way we look at this is that for (probably most of) us gaming is a passion not a profession and we disassociate it from the professional aspect of our lives. But it is an industry and it's priority is to make money. Having been a dirty student most of my life I'm dependent on the experience of others here, but with almost no exceptions, everyone I know has "taken it the up arse" someway or another in their professional lives. So why should our hypothetical editor set a higher standard for himself than we do, because he works in an industry that we are passionate about?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes the games industry is just that but games journalism should not be under the same umbrella.

Saying, hypothetically, that this is a viable option would be like saying that a news program should be influenced by money interests and only tell it how corporations want you to hear it.

It is why Fox news is derided and the BBC news is respected.

I watched some CNN a couple of days ago and it was shockingly bad.

"This just in there was a mistake in the ballots for Miss california, seems that this is causing some controversy, more on that later now back to the Omaha shootings"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Having been a dirty student most of my life I'm dependent on the experience of others here, but with almost no exceptions, everyone I know has "taken it the up arse" someway or another in their professional lives. So why should our hypothetical editor set a higher standard for himself than we do, because he works in an industry that we are passionate about?

Sorry, but that's another sweeping statement I'm calling "bullshit" on.

Not that anyone's remotely interested in my meatspace existence, but I've been presented with two financially attractive buggeree opportunities in the past and turned them both down because I didn't agree with them in principle.

I'm not talking about life-altering amounts of money, but not peanuts either. It's down to the individual and their perception of honesty and integrity.

This is why the subject interests me so much I suppose, but more importantly because this is an enthusiast-led sector for the most part.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's not just enthusiast based websites, it's ALL media. I heard of someone who wrote a brilliant article on why certain cosmetic products were a load of crap. Some of the said products were advertised in the magazine, so the umbrella company (which was huge) pulled ALL their ads from the next issue (related or not). The hit was so big that the journalist "left" (not officially fired) and the ads came back.

It's a tentative balance and if you're reliant on advertiser's money, there's no easy solution. You have to be honest (for your readership), but you can't be TOO honest... or you can, but you'd risk putting your business and livelihood at risk. Amiga Power was pretty damn brave in its day. It pissed off Team 17 so much they took AP to court for their "unfairly" bad reviews.

Of course, I respect honesty and integrity and I don't think you should ever (EVER!) be able to buy a good review of anything... but these "Official" magazines keep going somehow, so I guess I'm in a minority?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Errrm, that might be a bit too cynical (at least if you're not just talking about the US). What about the BBC news service? Aren't they a super independent organization? I don't think it's in their charter to just entertainment people and make them buy shit.

Same goes for a lot of other media but above is a convenient example.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's the point; the only "news" services that have a vested interest in people buying a product are those who rely heavily on those manufacturers for sponsorship.

Hence my clarification of ThunderPeel's statement above, as it's largely the enthusiast press who risk biting the hand that feeds them the most.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I see what you mean now, but it's more than just enthusiast media. What about newspapers? They need to sell in order to keep going. They're businesses.

All TV shows are dictated by how much advertising they can generate for the TV channel, too. It might be less so in the UK, especially with the BBC, but it's definitely true for the US, and the UK is following their model more and more.

As aside, the reason that the BBC News Service isn't dictated by advertising is probably because they don't have sponsors :) But more importantly, in the UK, TV news has to unbiased by law (unlike in the US). Which is why all TV news over here, not just the BBC's, is generally pretty good and of much higher quality than in the US.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's the danger of over-reliance on one or two key sources of major commercial funding - from a particular manufacturer, product line, whatever - that's most dangerous. And in this instance your point is more than valid, irrespective of the media sector it's funding.

It's never ever going to 100% transparent that what you're reading isn't being influenced by marketing money. But if you can see a publication is being balanced, if their writing is consistent and fair, then you can usually spot the bullshit a mile off.

Yes, you have to take the plunge and invest time to build up this trust, but that's why there are so many publications out there. GameSpot mined a very deep vein of trust over the many years it's been around, tapping literally dozens of well-respected freelance Video game journalists to write for them explicitly to build up this trust. Which is why this has caused such an outcry -- the new management have set this huge stockpile of goodwill and respect ablaze, just for a few grubby thousand dollars. Everything about it stank and loyal readers immediately put the pieces together and cried foul.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
All TV shows are dictated by how much advertising they can generate for the TV channel, too. It might be less so in the UK, especially with the BBC, but it's definitely true for the US, and the UK is following their model more and more.

And you know what? That's why most of the best shows on TV, in the US, are now all behind subscription services with no advertising breaks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×