Sarge034 said:
So you are confirming then that game journalists are, in fact, afraid of the publishers and take steps to keep them happy? What happened to editors standing with reviewers when ad revenue was threatened like you said before? This is actually part of what I meant when I said the relationship between the reviewers and the reviewed were too close. It's a conflict of interest to have the people whom your job is to critique paying your bills.
I don't think afraid is the right word. Usually there isn't much to be afraid of if you act like a decent person. There are polite ways to not accept goodies, so if it comes to that, that's what you should do.
Where I'm from it's not uncommon for writers to be very loyal to their publication, even if they're freelancers. One of the mags I wrote for organised get-togethers. Nothing special, just stuff like BBQ or a friendly game of sports on a nearby field. Came out of our own pockets. On the rare occasions you're out in public, meeting with a publisher or the PR company they hired, you behave, for the sake of your coworkers. Of course you do the right thing, but you're not going to make the waves bigger than needed. Plus, there's your own job to consider. Even if the editors are on your side, they can't keep paying you if the mag is going under.
O, and don't confuse events with whetever else we do. This is how it works: the publisher or PR company contacts our office to hand out download codes, invitations to events and so on. Sometimes they send goodies, but pretty much every publications I worked for used those for sweepstakes, only rarely giving something to the writers. The editor-in-chief looks at it, hands out the assigments and we go to work. In case of a download code (most common), we have nothing to do with the publisher at all. If it's an event (rare), we go, do our job (play a game, interview someone) and that's it. Contact with PR is mostly a politely shake of hands, confirming that yes, you you had a pleasant trip and other polite stuff. We don't see who bought ad spots until we open the mag or look at the site.
I would ask why is rising a shit not the right attitude to take? I see it as journalistic integrity to refuse the gifts and bring attention to how inappropriate those actions are.
And there are polite ways to do so. Raising a shitstorm would be entertaining for readers, sure, the few times I do meet PR people they turn out to be, well, nice. Enthousiastic. Most are young and pretty geeky themselves. So you say "No, thank you, it wouldn't be right for me to take this." If enough people do this, they'll be stuck with leftover swagbags - a sure sign that their approach isn't working.
(On a different note, a good portion of readers still wants to dream the dream of gamejournalists travel the world to play games and party. I think that's why some of us are still presenting it as something super fun, instead of something that's also stressful and probably awkward. You try sitting in a hotel room all day with a representative sitting next to you, eagerly telling you about all the awesome things available in their latest game.)
Do you think it would have been better if Woodward and Bernstein (Watergate) didn't risk rising shit? Or would Walter Cronkite ever had been named "most trusted man in America" if he just reported on things in a way that didn't cause unnecessary waves? Journalism today, ALL journalism today, just seems so unreliable because it appears no one has the balls to report all the facts, the truth, or even both sides of an issue. I honestly think this whole mess of things that have happened over the last year has the disconnect between journalists and the audience at their heart. It's a matter of trust, and as a whole people don't trust game journalists right now for the very reasons you listed above.
You're being a bit overly dramatic...
It's a sad thing the industry is so important to gamejournalism, but I think you need some perspective. What is the worst that could happen when journalism goes wrong? Consumers who eagerly pre-ordered the game, even before reviews were out, find themselves owning a piece of shit on a disc. A Colonial Marines situation. 60 bucks of hurt. That's the worst thing.
You could say it's journalists fault for hyping up the game, but the majority wants to read about things they're already familiar with. That's what sells magazines and draws people to websites. Start filling pages with reviews of niche games and you will get complaints. (Usually from two groups, the first doesn't understand why you'd write about that instead of a big new shooter, the second doesn't think you did their favourite thing ever justice by just giving it only one page.)
Now, journalists may get excited about new releases themselves. Is that bad? Is it wrong to like things? Most readers seem to appreciate honest enthusiasm, it's not only fun to read (and write!), but also a confirmation that they like the right thing. Liking the right thing is important to many readers. When it comes to previews, we rarely have much more to go by than the readers. Trailers hit the net as soon as they are presented, we stream demos when we can and so on. If a developer is lying through trailers/demos, they're lying to both journalists and readers. Should journalists be more critical than readers? Sure, but sometimes it turns out that even reasonable expectations were too much. That's an unpleasant surprise for everyone.
Anyway, I think trust is the only thing that fueled the disconnect. No, wait, it's be better to say a disconnect isn't the only thing that is going on. For some reason a group of consumers has decided their entertainment is extremely important. They expect other people, especially journalists, to feel the same. They can't write off a good or bad review as simply a good or bad review and go and find an reviewer with an opinion that suits them better, no, it's an insult to them and/or the game. There is one right opinion and whoever doesn't share it needs to be taken down. So they wage a war. It's fun, because they can all get together, discuss conspiracy theories and generally just feel like they're doing the right thing. They're heroes, fighting for something important. Gamejournalists are the enemy, because it's fun to have a common enemy and fight it together. Destruction is so much more entertaining than discussion.
The problem isn't that there is distrust. If it was just that, people would look for critics, journalists and publications they do trust. But not, warmongering is way more entertaining, and for the sake of entertainment, they decide not to trust anyone.
That particular instance, yes, I was talking about the Watch_Dogs event where a very small handful of journalists said IN PASSING that they got a tablet. It wasn't until after the internet pulled out their collective torches and pitch forks that journalists started making a thing of it. It was low hanging fruit but hey, it happened, it was inappropriate, and it proves my point.
That's not how I remember it. The first reports where from a Nintendo UK Magazine's editor-in-Chief:
"It is TRUTH. Ubisoft gave journalists a free Nexus 7 each at an exclusive Watchdogs preview event in Paris. Oh Ubisoft."
Note the 'Oh Ubisoft'.
He also didn't mention all what the press did with their tablets. Later tweets/reports had people mentioning they're putting theirs up for auction to raise money for charity (some mags/site do this with their swag, as it's a good way to give readers a chance to obtain goodies and to do something for people in need as well) or simply giving it back to PR. The general tone seemed to be: Ubisoft, do stuff like this and we won't take you seriously.
Of, course, shitstorms are more fun for readers and there are journalists who enjoy them as well, so why not give people what they're asking for, but I honestly don't know if it made much of a difference. What matters to Ubisoft is what happens behind the scenes. If enough people did take the tablet quietly, they could continue handing stuff like that out, but only to the quiet ones. No one would have to know. What journalists should do, is step up to the quiet ones and say "Dude, not cool. Don't sink to their level."
As I said, I don't know you. You could be one of the good ones, but until I know that for sure I have to assume that you might be part of the problem. I mean, you've already tried to rationalize playing softball and/or wearing kid's gloves when dealing with publishers. That worries me.
Why is it so strange to be polite to people? You do get stuff done that way.
Look, from a PR point of view, they're doing a great thing for journalists by handing out goodies and trips and what not. They think they're making out job fun. Journalists have to decide how to react to that. It's a stupid game everyone has to play, but we don't always make the same moves.
Some journalists paint a glamorous picture of it for readers, make it seem like something fun. Make believe for gamers who dream of becoming gamejournalists themselves. This approach is kinda dated. Worked much better back in the nineties when developers were mythical beings only a few could approach.
Others just do their job, just kinda tune out the PR stuff and focus on the game. Sometimes events are really fun, because you get to interview a person you admire, but you can't help but feel tired from all the traveling and the pressure of the deadlines.
A select few people refuse to go anywhere near anything PR related ever. If that's something you can afford to do is something that depends on the content you're offering. TB could do without. People don't go to him for reviews on the latest triple A titles, they like to see him play oddball games or challenge Trump to a Hearthstone match using a deck made of only legendaries. But, if your readership demands the latest and greatest (and if you don't offer it, they'll go somewhere else), you do have to consider playing the game. Good thing there's more than one way to win (as in: get your job done while keeping your dignity intact.
We've seen some gamers levy death threats, doxing, preforming ddos attacks, and being asshats in general. Those people, THOSE SPECIFIC PEOPLE, have shown us who they really are underneath their civil façade. Conversely some gamers showed themselves to be open minded, polite, and willing to try to solve issues instead of point fingers. But it's the same for journalists. Think of ALL the journalists that attacked people. "Gamer's are dead", calling entire demographics stupid, and worst of all siding themselves on a side. You people are journalists for god's sake! I don't care if one side is right or not (and I'm honestly still not sure which side was right with that whole Quinn thing, but not the time or the place) but you do not, DO NOT, actively chose a side. But how many remained neutral and actually tried to find the truth?
You seem to get some things confused. Journalists do pick sides. They do so all the time. Often picking a side starting by picking the paper you want to write for. Reality is complex and the truth is often in the eye of the beholder.
Gamejournalism is a special case, though, as most journalists are playing several roles. They are critcs, they are columnist, they investigate for a feature article. That's where things can get weird. The person normally bringing you Assassin's Creed news may publish an column about her bad experiences with some men in the industry, or something.
I'm not sure if it's a bad thing. Many gamers seem to appreciate the more personal note, because it makes the writers more than just names at the bottom of articles. Also, the people reviewing games are often the ones most knowledgable about it (atleast among the ones writing for that publication), it makes some sense to also send them out to interview the designer.
Journalists don't owe it to me, it's their job to tell the truth or at least informed options on both sides of an issue. If they do that they have my trust. And you're right, I am complaining about the 1%. Because look at it this way. In this instance the 1% is the most important percent. They have the most money to throw at things, the largest audience base, and are most likely the first and possibly only sources people uniformed to the current state of affairs would look at. In short, they have the most pull, the loudest voices.
To be frank, a game journalist will earn my trust through years of honest reporting. Game journalism, however, will probably never have my trust. It would take, pardon the grandiose wording, an industry wide rebellion against publishers for a start. Games journalism need to separate itself from the publisher's money or there will always be the cloud of doubt. That's the simple truth of it. I mean, look at American politics. Did Obama want net neutrality because he wanted it or because Google and the like are his biggest campaign supporters? And the same with the Republicans who are opposing it. Are they opposing it because they honestly think it's a bad idea or because Comcast/Time Warner and the like are their biggest supporters?
As I've been saying, it's all about how things appear to be.
It's a good thing modern consumers have a lot of power. So please, support the ones you do trust and help make them people that matter.
But, do remember you may have to give up some luxuries if you choose the people furthest away from the publisher. They won't be able to give you the latest info, you need a direct line to the publisher for that. You also won't be able to take part in sweepstakes or have the magazine you read come with a goodies. There are reasons why magazines like Famitsu are still widely read in Japan: many people there just want the latest tidbits, no hardhitting reviews.
