Journalistic Integrity?

[zoozilla]

The more I go around the rumour mill, the more I find that I'm one of only a handful of people who don't think he was fired over a negative reveiw.

For one thing, some of the facts don't line up.

The review was on Nov. 13, yet he was fired recently, or at least several days after.

Also, if Edios was responsible in some way, why didn't they just pack up their ads and leave, why did they want someone fired?

What's more, why not have the review taken down and have someone else post something "better"?

And while GameSpot's 6/10 score was low, it certainly wasn't out of the ordinary, most all review sites and magazines are in agreement that this is a 6/10 game.

Why would Gamespot be singled out, and why would such a senior and generally respected editor be demanded (and accepted by Gamespot) as sacrifice?

http://www.joystiq.com/2007/11/30/rumor-gamespots-editorial-director-fired-over-kane-and-lynch-rev/

No, I don't think his review, or at least any one specific one, had anything to do with it.

Though this does bring up the question of, "What did happen?"

This is what the conspiracy theorists say:

Gerstmann wasn't fired just after the review was posted because of the huge holiday rush. Gerstmann was editor-in-chief; he would be needed during that most crucial time of year.

He was probably fired because he wrote the review that made Eidos pull their ads, which meant that Gamespot lost a lot of money (the amount of K&L ads on GS.com was absurd), which meant that CNET lost a bunch of money, which meant Gerstmann lost CNET a bunch of money. Therefore, what's the best action to take? Fire the fat donut-hog, of course!

Gamespot was singled out because Eidos had a helluva lot of ads on their site. That's right. A helluva lot of ads. You couldn't move your mouse an inch in any direction without hitting a K&L ad. And that's NOT lying. Just exaggerating.

I don't know what to think. I just know that this whole thing is a shambolic mess.

EDIT: beat me to it, JamesW. Sigh. I worked hard on this. Real hard. I mean, Rocky IV hard. I guess the better man won.

 

[JamesW]

Sorry, zoozilla.

 

[Lance Icarus]

News link: Gerstmann, Gamespot part ways [http://www.gamespot.com/news/6183603.html?action=convert&om_clk=latestnews&tag=latestnews;title;0]

"Due to legal constraints and the company policy of GameSpot parent CNET Networks, details of Gerstmann's departure cannot be disclosed publicly. However, contrary to widespread and unproven reports, his exit was not a result of pressure from an advertiser."

Looks like Gamespot's finally just outright denying any Eidos influence. Should have just done it from the beginning.

 

[LordOmnit]

Oh, of course they end with MORE ADVERTISING. And the way they worded it, they couldn't have been more clear except by saying, "Hey! It's all because of the review!" If they want to say it isn't because of that, then they should give a better reason, even something pretty vague would be fine, but outright saying, "We won't tell you. Nyah nyah nyah!" is a surefire way to get people to think the opposite.

 

[blackadvent]

Ah, Kane and Lynch strikes again!

http://kotaku.com/gaming/eidos/did-we-give-kane--lynch-5-stars-329539.php

http://kotaku.com/gaming/kane-%26-lynch/kane--lynch-site-fibbing-about-reviews-scores-329529.php

If I'm reading this right, then Edios is lying about review scores from Game Informer, Gamespy, and Kotaku. And Kotaku DOESN'T GIVE OUT SCORES.

 

[Russ Pitts]

I mean, Rocky IV hard.

That's pretty hard. I mean, you're pulling that sled with Paulie on it through the snow.

 

[raankh]

I'm a bit surprised by the outrage. Does anybody really doubt that Gamespot gives biased reviews? Especially their video-reviews play like advertisements. Every (major, mainstream) game they review is "massive", "intense" and whatnot.

If anyone is in doubt, well ... they are being PAID by the publishers of the games they review. I mean really, the situation is something akin to asking a car-salesman on commission which car has most value for the money. He might give you a straight answer, but he might as well not.

I don't care how "professional" you are, accepting payment from game publishers in this context is in itself an issue with integrity. Even if game reviews aren't as "serious" a business, there's a reason why independent auditing boards are required to not have stakes in the companies they audit.

Per default, Gamespot has issues with integrity, since they accept money from major game publishers. I thought that was more or less understood and accepted by everyone. Guess I'm sort of blue-eyed cynical?

 

[goestoeleven]

I'm a bit surprised by the outrage. Does anybody really doubt that Gamespot gives biased reviews? Especially their video-reviews play like advertisements. Every (major, mainstream) game they review is "massive", "intense" and whatnot.

If anyone is in doubt, well ... they are being PAID by the publishers of the games they review. I mean really, the situation is something akin to asking a car-salesman on commission which car has most value for the money. He might give you a straight answer, but he might as well not.

I don't care how "professional" you are, accepting payment from game publishers in this context is in itself an issue with integrity. Even if game reviews aren't as "serious" a business, there's a reason why independent auditing boards are required to not have stakes in the companies they audit.

Per default, Gamespot has issues with integrity, since they accept money from major game publishers. I thought that was more or less understood and accepted by everyone. Guess I'm sort of blue-eyed cynical?

Sure, I knew they were a little biased, but not to the point of so obviously firing one of their own editors for an honest negative review. That goes from "sleazy" to downright "wrong".

 

[mrblackett]

Oh, of course they end with MORE ADVERTISING. And the way they worded it, they couldn't have been more clear except by saying, "Hey! It's all because of the review!" If they want to say it isn't because of that, then they should give a better reason, even something pretty vague would be fine, but outright saying, "We won't tell you. Nyah nyah nyah!" is a surefire way to get people to think the opposite.

That may well be true given that people tend to enjoy wild conspiracy theories more than boring truth. The fact is that an employee's contract with their private company employer is confidential. Just because the circumstances surrounding the firing are a bit suspect, and they've caused some understandable consternation, doesn't mean that CNET are under any obligation to tell anyone a thing. It's no-one's business but CNET's and Gerstmann's.

 

[LordOmnit]

Yeah, I understand that, but being totally sealed lipped about it, except for what they are saying isn't the reason should be more than a bit suspect to anyone. And believe it or not, I'm the guy who always is against the idea of conspiracy theories.

 

[mrbunny]

i personally didnt like the childish behaivior of Jeff Gerstmann, and his inherent ability to pass off as a wood-elf from oblivion, but i saw this coming. gamespot used to have fantastic reviews until recently - i.e. the halo 3 review (which Gerstmann did) which i somewhat disagreed with. I finally deserted gamespot and it became clear gamespot's passion for gaming was know plumited into the depths of 'who gives a sh**' and eventually lost touch with the gaming community. reviews im currently following up now are from the IGN (au) review team, i find they produce some solid scores with solid evidence to back up what they say - basically good TRUSTWORTHY reviews are hard to come by these days. in retrospect i respect Gerstmann for having the guts to finally stand up to the pressures of corporate biased dealings that would distort and wrongfully coerce the everyday gamer.
however if you want an easier solution to this ever growing problem in the media and alike, just look to the skies and thank god in times like these theres always yahtzee to turn to.

 

[SomeCrazyGuy]

Agreed (to mrbunny). I'm just glad someone else said it before I did (I am aware this is a moderately old topic, and... I don't care, honestly). I decided to watch a few random reviews after I caught what was going on (last parenthesis, I promise: Until this time, I didn't care enough to pay attention to GameSpot reviews), and found that his reviews were really quite mediocre, definitely not up to the quality I have been made to expect from someone PAID to do reviews. Even though I agreed with the basic substance of the K&L review, it was still of poor quality, and judging from the other reviews I'd seen, I'm not entirely surprised he'd been fired. As for the K&L review being pulled down upon firing, that could also possibly be because they didn't want to bother with any complaints saying 'omgz yr usin is review rite after u fird him1', not to say they are completely innocent (I still don't go to GameSpot, after all [Yes, I lied about the parenthesis, so sue me]) but they have too much going in their favor to immediately cry 'foul!'

As for Yahtzee, that ISN'T the only thing on this site, yeah, he's awesome, we know, but I do find it annoying that so many people seem to more-or-less consider ZP The Escapists only qualifying factor, when there are so many other great things to TE.