If you don't want to be mistaken as a journalist, avoid seeming to put on the airs of one. But I refuse to have my desire for _actual_ reportage, _acutal_ reporting on the industry to be disappeared from the scene. Are you saying that no one who enjoys video games might want to see investigative stories on conditions for developers, US and abroad? The hits on the EA overtime issue should disprove that, in addition to that story's revelation of that topic as valid in the conversation about our past time.
Investigation and revelation of truth on controversial subjects, such as gold selling, working conditions, emergent play, and other topics seem worthwhile subjects. What's wrong with a gamer wanting someone in gaming to seek truth? What's wrong with wanting a clearly labeled divide between the editorial, reportorial, and critical sections of the industry's media output and the existence of standards in that media? What about factual things of interest, like giant robot statues or release events gone horribly right or spectacularly wrong?
I want those things. I want those things to be reported verifiable without intermixed editorial or criticism or obscured bias. I want part of my pursuit of information and facts about my hobby and passion to be subject to some of the same levels of vetting before publication that other sources of information and facts hold themselves to. That's what journalism is about.
My main objection to the current popular form of games journalism/analysis/criticism is that it tends to mix the reportage with editorial analysis and critique, most often without labeling any of it. You guys are the lucky bastards who have secured the Rolling Stone Magazine positions of our time, and it just kills me that a bunch of dirty f'ing hippies took their scribblings about Led Zeppelin and The Doors more seriously than you guys treat yours.
Just sayin'.
Investigation and revelation of truth on controversial subjects, such as gold selling, working conditions, emergent play, and other topics seem worthwhile subjects. What's wrong with a gamer wanting someone in gaming to seek truth? What's wrong with wanting a clearly labeled divide between the editorial, reportorial, and critical sections of the industry's media output and the existence of standards in that media? What about factual things of interest, like giant robot statues or release events gone horribly right or spectacularly wrong?
I want those things. I want those things to be reported verifiable without intermixed editorial or criticism or obscured bias. I want part of my pursuit of information and facts about my hobby and passion to be subject to some of the same levels of vetting before publication that other sources of information and facts hold themselves to. That's what journalism is about.
My main objection to the current popular form of games journalism/analysis/criticism is that it tends to mix the reportage with editorial analysis and critique, most often without labeling any of it. You guys are the lucky bastards who have secured the Rolling Stone Magazine positions of our time, and it just kills me that a bunch of dirty f'ing hippies took their scribblings about Led Zeppelin and The Doors more seriously than you guys treat yours.
Just sayin'.