Twitty Twitty Ten Dollar

[hentropy]

I don't really know what big big story this is about but at the same time I'm sort of glad. Gaming journalism should be reporting on games and the industry, not trying to pile on other gaming journalists and reporting endlessly on "scandals" with other publications.

 

[Lyri]

So you perhaps see why I don't jump into the fray to get into a fight that isn't mine to begin with. Do I think a game journalist should be tweeting about a certain game in order to win a PS3? Of course not, that's clearly unprofessional - as was calling out that journalist by name in an article that wasn't about her, per se, but rather about the blurring line between PR and reporting. And until the audience starts from a default of giving us the benefit of the doubt, nothing anyone says about it matters. We are assumed to be liars, cheats, and thieves, no matter what we've done or said.

I have no idea what is even going on but I'm not even sure (from what I can understand) that it's vaguely important enough to care about?
So journalists are entering competitions by using work related social media outlets, advertising that brand in a public forum?

If this is sanctioned by the companies whom employ the journalists, well so what? It doesn't seem shady at all, just work based incentives for people who would probably have to at least not speak negatively about a product their employers were advertising.

The gaming community rallies against some dumb shit sometimes. That said I hope I have the gist of the situation.

 

[Scorched_Cascade]

I find it kind of sad that this comic is the only commentary on the situation I've seen from the site so far. It's an important discussion to have, and I think the site is missing a good opportunity.

In any case, good strip :3

Because "We're totally innocent in this" always makes people look more guilty than they actually are even when they are totally innocent and not at all involved.

TV shows that start with "the following tales are all actual true stories" or adverts that state "true testimonials from customers" always make my eyes narrow and my bullshit detecter go off.

(I now realise how apt my forum title is)

As soon as they find someone who has something to say other than "we were in no way involved" or generic poop flinging they'll probably post an article on it.

OT: I like how this comic covers this. The journalist (Erin) doesn't really like what the others are doing but is forced to join in by her boss. The comic assumes a kind of neutrality on the part of the journalist and blames their company, it's quite a fair way of putting it. Loving the "What" face in panel 2.

 

[Starke]

I'm sure you'll see more editorials on the subject once our guys actually have something to add. A lot of the editorials that are cropping up thus far aren't really adding anything to the discussion; they're largely just diatribes from journalists looking to prove they're not like Wainwright or her ilk.

Honestly the lack of basic coverage has lead to the perception that this has been out in the wild longer than it's actually been. Which is really weird. It wasn't until I was responding to Susan that I realized the major break for this news on actual sites has only been in the last few days. Jim's Destructoid editorial was on the 29th, and the Techdirt article was yesterday.

When you combine that with being out sick for the entire week, and I'm left with this really warped perception that this broke as it happened. Which, to be fair, it kinda did in places.

What really does disturb me a bit, and still does, is that this really hasn't been getting even a basic news writeup, even before the editorials. I can understand not wanting to weigh in with the editorials yet, but we've got one gaming reporter threatening another with defamation because she didn't like being called out for supporting a publisher backed sweepstakes to gaming journalists.

And, of course, as you've pointed out it is a damned if you do, damned if you don't situation. If you do a writeup, then you're "trying to prove you're not like Wainwright", and if you don't, you're "obviously in collusion". Unless of course I actually managed to miss an article reporting on Wainright's defamation suit threat, in which case I need to cram my foot someplace down my throat...

EDIT: Brain not work so gud... >.< She threatened defamation, she didn't actually file suit.

 

[Andy Shandy]

This site is the mouthpiece of the gaming generation, isn't it?

That's what the slogan is! (After that "slogan" thread in Off-Topic, I was trying to remember what is was =P)

Anyway, while I have some sympathy for gaming journalists, I can't help but be suspicious for at least a while after a story like this pops up.

The Totilo/Kotaku "This story isn't important" did give me a good chuckle as well. Although it doesn't exactly help people's suspicions.

And to finish on the "tangentially related" note I started on, people should watch Burnistoun (it's a series the writer of the Eurogamer article, Rob Florence, writes for)

 

[RandomMan01]

So you perhaps see why I don't jump into the fray to get into a fight that isn't mine to begin with. Do I think a game journalist should be tweeting about a certain game in order to win a PS3? Of course not, that's clearly unprofessional - as was calling out that journalist by name in an article that wasn't about her, per se, but rather about the blurring line between PR and reporting. And until the audience starts from a default of giving us the benefit of the doubt, nothing anyone says about it matters. We are assumed to be liars, cheats, and thieves, no matter what we've done or said.

I have no idea what is even going on but I'm not even sure (from what I can understand) that it's vaguely important enough to care about?
So journalists are entering competitions by using work related social media outlets, advertising that brand in a public forum?

If this is sanctioned by the companies whom employ the journalists, well so what? It doesn't seem shady at all, just work based incentives for people who would probably have to at least not speak negatively about a product their employers were advertising.

The gaming community rallies against some dumb shit sometimes. That said I hope I have the gist of the situation.

The problem is, the brands in question were video games. Basically, the company in question offered several game journalists a chance to win a free PS3 if they [positively] tweeted about a game that's coming out (I forget the specific game). So not just were the journalists allowing themselves to be bribed, but they were doing it for a PS3.

To top that off, when a writer for EuroGamer wrote an article elated to it, he called out a few of them by name. One of the journalists that was called out threatened to press libel charges against the writer, so now he can no longer write for EuroGamer.

 

[Susan Arendt]

I find it kind of sad that this comic is the only commentary on the situation I've seen from the site so far. It's an important discussion to have, and I think the site is missing a good opportunity.

In any case, good strip :3

To be fair, a lot of gaming "journalism" sites have been trying to ignore the whole thing as much as possible (and yes, in this case, the industry has earned those quotes around journalism.) Kotaku decided to completely ignore it, and when they were called out over that they said "it wasn't important enough" and instead posted an unboxing of Halo 4.

And, the entire "let's be quiet, and hope this shit goes away" element has made me really cynical of all the positive reviews that went up for Halo 4 on Wednesday night, Escapist included.

Now, as a reviewer you can say you're not being bought off. But you're reviewing content that was provided to you gratis at least an entire week before official release. If you weren't a member of the "gaming media" your 360 would have been bricked if you did that.

And none of this addresses the fact that publishers are quite willing to actually blacklist anyone that annoys them. Jim Sterling's been fairly open about his blacklisting by Konami, and I don't think anyone's going to forget the Kane and Lynch Gamestop shitstorm.

It saddens me that The Escapist wants to let this one slip by without editorial commenting on it, it really does.

The fact that you assume the lack of comment is in the hopes of things going away renders any discussion pointless. I don't feel obligated to offer an opinion simply to "prove" my innocence. You look at the tools I need to do my job as a bribe - why should I bother saying anything at all? You've clearly already made your decision, and I can't prove a negative.

Either someone looks at the body of my work and believes I am who I say I am, or they don't. And very little I say about "Doritogate" will change that.

Here's a perfect example - our high praise of Dragon Age 2 and Mass Effect 3 "proved" that we'd been bought by EA. Our low score for Medal of Honor, then, should surely "prove" that to be untrue, right? Oh, no. It's just that EA doesn't care enough about that game to pay us off. It's not one of their "big" titles.

These are actual comments that come from these very forums.

So you perhaps see why I don't jump into the fray to get into a fight that isn't mine to begin with. Do I think a game journalist should be tweeting about a certain game in order to win a PS3? Of course not, that's clearly unprofessional - as was calling out that journalist by name in an article that wasn't about her, per se, but rather about the blurring line between PR and reporting. And until the audience starts from a default of giving us the benefit of the doubt, nothing anyone says about it matters. We are assumed to be liars, cheats, and thieves, no matter what we've done or said.

So no matter what you've done or said, the end result is completely beyond your control?
Now YOU know how that feels.

And just so we're clear, I DON'T think you were bought out by EA.

I don't understand your point - when haven't I known how that feels? Before I was a game journalist?

 

[Mike Fang]

As a journalist myself, this is a bit of a tough issue. It's the right to free speech vs. maintaining journalistic integrity by not showing favoritism. Now if someone's offering you some form of reward/payment/etc. for a public endorsement, then yes, that's a breach of integrity. However, if there's no sort of compensation being provided, then there's little evidence to show that it's anything besides expressing a personal opinion.

Generally I find that the best way to avoid this, twitter-wise, is to have two separate Twitter accounts; one for professional purposes, like announcing upcoming stories or providing links to pages on your publication's website, and a separate one for personal use. It works especially well if your personal account uses an alias so people aren't going to immediately associate that account with the fact you're a journalist.

 

[Basement Cat]

I barely recognized Sharon in today's strip. She looks pretty rough!

Maybeeee she's into that check for some *cough*NOSE*cough candy?

Poor Sharon. I hope Erin's activities didn't contribute to Sharon's drug habit.

.
.
Captcha: white elephant
.
.
Very subtle, Captcha. I wonder how many others will get your point.

 

[Lyri]

The problem is, the brands in question were video games. Basically, the company in question offered several game journalists a chance to win a free PS3 if they [positively] tweeted about a game that's coming out (I forget the specific game). So not just were the journalists allowing themselves to be bribed, but they were doing it for a PS3.

To top that off, when a writer for EuroGamer wrote an article elated to it, he called out a few of them by name. One of the journalists that was called out threatened to press libel charges against the writer, so now he can no longer write for EuroGamer.

Maybe I'm just being a grumpy bugger but I have really missed the social power and relevance of Twitter, I'm not a user so I don't really understand why this matters so much.
A journalist is paid to positively name drop a game on his twitter,and?

This has probably been happening for a long time (in fact we know it has, Geissmangate however you spell it) but this time they get an incentive.
I don't really see the harm, I don't tend to follow game journalists or the gaming news as this is a hobby and not a professional pursuit of mine.

I wouldn't rush out and buy Superman 64 if Susan posted a twitter comment about how wonderful and fantastic Supes latest adventure is no more than I would something like Medal of Honor (since it's the new kid on the block).
If I was going to do that then I'd be buying it anyway (looking at you Dishonoured).

As for calling out the other journalists, well that is just pretty petty.

 

[Susan Arendt]

"You Will Do As Soon as this check cashes in"?

Not to be a grammer Nazi, but that really hurts my brain. You might wanna fix that or something?

Otherwise, good strip.

It's colloquial British speech. "It should do" or "you will do" is perfectly correct conversational language.

 

[MorganL4]

Ummm........ So if you are a games journalist in 2012 how can you NOT own a PS3?

I mean that's like being a music journalist in 1975 and NOT owning a record player. IT DID NOT HAPPEN.

The "chance" to win a PS3 shouldn't even get a head turn, let alone a twitter post.

 

[Starke]

And it turns out we both edited our posts after the original quote... so... here I go again... >.<

Here's a perfect example - our high praise of Dragon Age 2 and Mass Effect 3 "proved" that we'd been bought by EA. Our low score for Medal of Honor, then, should surely "prove" that to be untrue, right? Oh, no. It's just that EA doesn't care enough about that game to pay us off. It's not one of their "big" titles.

These are actual comments that come from these very forums.

So you perhaps see why I don't jump into the fray to get into a fight that isn't mine to begin with. Do I think a game journalist should be tweeting about a certain game in order to win a PS3? Of course not, that's clearly unprofessional - as was calling out that journalist by name in an article that wasn't about her, per se, but rather about the blurring line between PR and reporting. And until the audience starts from a default of giving us the benefit of the doubt, nothing anyone says about it matters. We are assumed to be liars, cheats, and thieves, no matter what we've done or said.

That's actually where I'd argue you're wrong.

Ironically I almost wanted to bring up a DA2 earlier, and not to hang you. It's what usually gets termed a sleeper, reviewers look at it, they get it, they like it. The general public looks at it, and says "WTF is this shit?" Equally ironically I actually agree that DA2 was a very good game, but, it was also very uncharacteristic for Bioware's normal writing. It was both bleak, and morally ambiguous. In any other medium this would have been termed "a sleeper" and "a departure," and only the most rabid fans would have scampered off claiming the reviews were in fact dishonest.

Unfortunately, this is the industry where Ubisoft got Gamespot to change a review (sorry to keep harping on that one), where Atari threatened to sue for negative reviews, and where we've got the GMAs.

I'm sympathetic, you're in a profession with some very unprofessional colleagues, and the only way you can avoid being painted by the same brush sometimes is by doing everything you possibly can to shake the slightest hint of impropriety.

In this case, that probably meant at least running a one off news article, long before the editorials came into focus. And, yeah, you could call that just taking cheap shots, but there is a real story here. And, often, saying nothing sends a message all it's own, even when it has no relation to the truth.

 

[Mr.Mattress]

"You Will Do As Soon as this check cashes in"?

Not to be a grammer Nazi, but that really hurts my brain. You might wanna fix that or something?

Otherwise, good strip.

It's colloquial British speech. "It should do" or "you will do" is perfectly correct conversational language.

Oh, you miss understand me. "It Should Do" Isn't wrong to me when you say it as "It Should Do it" or something like that. It's wrong when it's "It Should Do As that", or "It Should Do When It Do That" or something like that.

The sentence would do better without the Do, for then it would read "You Will as soon as this check cashes in." With the Do thrown in, it feels off.

 

[Urgh76]

Laughed a bit harder than expected at this one

Not sure if it was for the joke, or the description at the end forcing me to imagine Skeletor saying "POWER"

Either way, well done

 

[Starke]

"You Will Do As Soon as this check cashes in"?

Not to be a grammer Nazi, but that really hurts my brain. You might wanna fix that or something?

Otherwise, good strip.

It's colloquial British speech. "It should do" or "you will do" is perfectly correct conversational language.

Oh, you miss understand me. "It Should Do" Isn't wrong to me when you say it as "It Should Do it" or something like that. It's wrong when it's "It Should Do As that", or "It Should Do When It Do That" or something like that.

The sentence would do better without the Do, for then it would read "You Will as soon as this check cashes in." With the Do thrown in, it feels off.

It can work in dialog if you've got a character who rephrases a sentence halfway through. It's something that people actually do on a fairly regular bases, and if you're sliding towards realism over formalism, it's an entirely legitimate choice. But, yeah, it doesn't really flow... :\

 

[Moonlight Butterfly]

Erm why not just buy a PS3 it's like £200 I fail to see the incentive to sell out here...

LAME BRIBE IS LAME.

The weird thing is that people think that games journalists twitter feeds are like some sort of influential power. The ones I have seen mostly talk about their cat or what they had for dinner.

 

[RA92]

The fact that you assume the lack of comment is in the hopes of things going away renders any discussion pointless. I don't feel obligated to offer an opinion simply to "prove" my innocence. You look at the tools I need to do my job as a bribe - why should I bother saying anything at all? You've clearly already made your decision, and I can't prove a negative.

You think that's ridiculous? John Walker multiple times [http://botherer.org/2012/10/25/an-utter-disgrace/], and was the source for most of the news post out there.

But when John didn't post about it on his review website Rock Paper Shotgun, guess what happened? People theorizing that RPS's connection to Eurogamer handling their ads having an effect on their news posts. [www.rockpapershotgun.com/2012/10/28/the-sunday-papers-240/#comment-1118736]

-_-

Here's a perfect example - our high praise of Dragon Age 2 and Mass Effect 3 "proved" that we'd been bought by EA. Our low score for Medal of Honor, then, should surely "prove" that to be untrue, right? Oh, no. It's just that EA doesn't care enough about that game to pay us off. It's not one of their "big" titles.

These are actual comments that come from these very forums.

Oh puh-lease, we all know what happened. There was a mix-up of brown envelopes sent to the reviewers. You got a big wad of cash for the MoH review that you didn't want, and someone else got the batch of cookies [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/7.281738-Yes-We-Really-Can-Be-Bribed-With-Cookies] meant for you. Thus the mediocre score in your review.

YOU CAN'T HIDE THE TRUTH FROM US SUSAN! WE KNOW YOU GOT YOUR HANDS ON COOKIES ALL OVER THE INDUSTRY!