Pogilrup said:
"Freedom of information" is a term that generally applies to governments in this context, not people. Are you suggesting their personal finances be available so that we can audit them? I think if that's the case, you wouldn't get better games journalism, just less of it. Speaking personally, if someone made a law where I had to lay bare my finances to prove to the public I wasn't biased (and this is already an absurd premise, given the standards required for a game journalist to be accused of TEH BIAS), I'd rather pack up.
Look there was a screenshot of how various gaming news sites got a 15 out of 100 in their evaluation to become Reuters quality.
Of the reasons cited for the low score is, as I will paraphrase: having economic ties to the industry.
Reuters didn't let that stop them with tobacco.
Also, I'm inclined to ask so what? They're selling toys.
But okay, fine. How many music or movie sites meet their criteria? It's incredibly common to see financial ties there, too. Weirdly enough, I bet you don't have those numbers. People tend not to care because even the most histrionic movie goers don't spend a lot of time complaining about how film critics are TEH BIAS and PAID OFF.
shrekfan246 said:
A lot of video game reviewers, at least on sites smaller than IGN, don't make enough money that purchasing the games themselves is a viable option.
But neither should they have to. Other media reviewers get review copies. Hell, I've been offered review copies of books and CDs (or MP3 versions of the album) based solely on my
AMAZON.COM[footnote]for the record, I'm not talking Vine program or whatever, as I'm not part of Vine[/footnote] reviews, where these people are unaware of anything else I've done. Never got offered a movie free, though. You don't even need to review for a major publication. Hell, my father gets review copies for things he writes on his free website. Sometimes, even unsolicited.
I think it's really absurd that reviewers of a more expensive media (barring the inclusion of box sets or possibly collector's editions) should feel inclined to be treated like they can't be trusted because its fanbase can't deal with the concept that they might like other things (which is where like, 90% of the bias claims come from). And worse, the idea that it could go on routinely with nobody being aware. Hell, the mere hint of impropriety with Zoe Quinn caused an internet shitstorm. Yeah, I know a lot of it comes down to her being a woman, and her being a feminist, and her making a game people had issues with, but seriously.
A bigger problem is that unlike other media, embargoes are quite common (to my understanding, as I am not a games reviewer). Jim Sterling on this very site talks about being blacklisted by publishers, and he's not the only one making that claim (nor even remotely so). There's no money exhanging hands that we can prove, no shady backroom deals, no. Just the silent understanding that they will try and crush your livelihood.
Speaking of Jim, I think it was he who suggested simply not covering certain devs and pubs when they behave this way. While it's probably the only realistic way to stop publisher blacklisting, I wonder how many of the people angry with TEH BIAS in gaming would have a fit when there were suddenly no reviews for their next big purchase.