And Now For Some Truth

[BillyBlackSheep]

"Journalistic integrity" has been the fig leaf over the flaccid, disfigured, wart-covered genitalia that is the GamerGate movement since its inception. I come here to remove it.

The problem with asking for journalistic integrity is that you're not asking for it from actual journalists. Does Yatzhee have a degree in journalism? Do any of the guys at Giant Bomb or Destructoid? Guys, this isn't some Woodward and Bernstein level stuff here. Nobody's going to get beheaded for uncovering the secret munitions factories being built by Activision as part of their new viral marketing campaign for Call of Duty.

These people are product reviewers. The only events that they cover are trade shows. The only stories that they break are reposting PR packets from AAA studios. The standards you're asking for don't apply to them because they're not important enough to be that rigorous. Seriously, this is a hobby. These guys aren't Time Magazine. They're Fisherman's Weekly. They're maybe a step up from Cosmo and a step down from Parade. And that's being generous.

If you seriously think that "journalistic integrity" is an issue here then you don't understand what either of those words mean. And you clearly don't understand the relative lack of importance that your hobby has next to real news.

 

[Irick]

Journalism ethics and standards comprise principles of ethics and of good practice as applicable to the specific challenges faced by journalists. Historically and currently, this subset of media ethics is widely known to journalists as their professional "code of ethics" or the "canons of journalism". The basic codes and canons commonly appear in statements drafted by both professional journalism associations and individual print, broadcast, and online news organizations.[footnote]Journalism ethics and standards [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Journalism_ethics_and_standards][/footnote]

A journalist is a person who works with collecting, writing and distributing news and other current information. A journalist's work is referred to as journalism. A journalist can work with general issues, or specialized in certain issues. For example, a sports journalist covers news within the world of sports.[footnote]Journalist [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Journalist][/footnote]

Journalism is gathering, processing, and dissemination of news and information related to the news to an audience. The word applies to both the method of inquiring for news and the literary style which is used to disseminate it.[footnote]Journalism [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Journalism][/footnote]

A profession is a vocation founded upon specialized educational training, the purpose of which is to supply objective counsel and service to others, for a direct and definite compensation, wholly apart from expectation of other business gain. The term is a truncation of the term "liberal profession", which is, in turn, an anglicisation of the French term "profession libérale". Originally borrowed by English users in the nineteenth century, it has been re-borrowed by international users from the late twentieth, though the (upper-middle) class overtones of the term do not seem to survive retranslation: ?liberal professions? are, according to the Directive on Recognition of Professional Qualifications (2005/36/EC) ?those practised on the basis of relevant professional qualifications in a personal, responsible and professionally independent capacity by those providing intellectual and conceptual services in the interest of the client and the public?[footnote]Profession [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Profession][/footnote]

Short and sweet, even if you are doing it as a hobby, we can and should still hold you to professional standards. Especially if you have a non-insignificant audience. The landscape changes once more when it becomes your profession. E.G. something you do with the training you receive either on the job of via an academic institution and are paid for regularly.

 

[BillyBlackSheep]

Journalism ethics and standards comprise principles of ethics and of good practice as applicable to the specific challenges faced by journalists. Historically and currently, this subset of media ethics is widely known to journalists as their professional "code of ethics" or the "canons of journalism". The basic codes and canons commonly appear in statements drafted by both professional journalism associations and individual print, broadcast, and online news organizations.[footnote]Journalism ethics and standards [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Journalism_ethics_and_standards][/footnote]

A journalist is a person who works with collecting, writing and distributing news and other current information. A journalist's work is referred to as journalism. A journalist can work with general issues, or specialized in certain issues. For example, a sports journalist covers news within the world of sports.[footnote]Journalist [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Journalist][/footnote]

Journalism is gathering, processing, and dissemination of news and information related to the news to an audience. The word applies to both the method of inquiring for news and the literary style which is used to disseminate it.[footnote]Journalism [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Journalism][/footnote]

A profession is a vocation founded upon specialized educational training, the purpose of which is to supply objective counsel and service to others, for a direct and definite compensation, wholly apart from expectation of other business gain. The term is a truncation of the term "liberal profession", which is, in turn, an anglicisation of the French term "profession libérale". Originally borrowed by English users in the nineteenth century, it has been re-borrowed by international users from the late twentieth, though the (upper-middle) class overtones of the term do not seem to survive retranslation: ?liberal professions? are, according to the Directive on Recognition of Professional Qualifications (2005/36/EC) ?those practised on the basis of relevant professional qualifications in a personal, responsible and professionally independent capacity by those providing intellectual and conceptual services in the interest of the client and the public?[footnote]Profession [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Profession][/footnote]

Short and sweet, even if you are doing it as a hobby, we can and should still hold you to professional standards. Especially if you have a non-insignificant audience. The landscape changes once more when it becomes your profession. E.G. something you do with the training you receive either on the job of via an academic institution and are paid for regularly.

Absolutely none of that applies to product reviews. You could potentially pervert the definitions that you've provided to reporting on corporate transactions but that's never covered by the majority of gaming media. Reviewing a product is NOT the dissemination of news or information. It's opinion. Clearly.

 

[BillyBlackSheep]

There is a specific set of standards that have to be met for critics and editorial staff alike. I know this from working on a paper, though I worked primarily as a part time columnist, not as a critic. I was more editorial I guess. The point is you can't just go "I don't like Dirty Dancing. I thought it sucked!"

You have a column of 800-2000 words to fill, depending on the paper and how popular you are. And you have to give clear logical reasons to why you don't like whatever it is you don't like (by the way, I actually love Dirty Dancing). You could harp on the music of Dirty Dancing as not immersive enough. You could say the sister character, as well as the rest of the family wasn't believable. You could decide that the ending completely took you out of it, as those two just didn't make sense as a couple. But it's like being on a debate team, you have to have a clear, concise reason and be able to defend that reason.

That being said, this whole journalistic ethics debate we have going on right now does not seem to understand that. Anyone that is out there right now can pick up Gears Of War 2 and say they didn't care for the game because it was horribly sexist because Marcus Feonix's arms are bigger than his head. I don't know why that would be sexist, but I was talking about that game with a friend earlier, so that's where my brain is going.

The reviewer has every right to say that, even if every other reviewer out there gave the game a 10/10, and this reviewer gave it a 7/10. As long as it is a concise article that doesn't just say "I hate it!" over and over, scrawled in monkey's blood on a napkin from a local diner, you've got an article that follows the guidelines set. They don't have to take out their feelings, because that is what makes a review. I'm not reading a review to find out that it's a video game, or what the specs are. I can read the back of the game for that.

Granted, you try to say that to someone on the GG side, and you get talked into circles until you just decide it's easier to teach a dog to drive a car than to continue to the conversation. So I guess the point is moot all together.

Exactly. By the definitions that the GamerGate people are using, PewDiePie would count as a "journalist". And clearly there are zero standards which that guy's working by.

 

[BillyBlackSheep]

There is a specific set of standards that have to be met for critics and editorial staff alike. I know this from working on a paper, though I worked primarily as a part time columnist, not as a critic. I was more editorial I guess. The point is you can't just go "I don't like Dirty Dancing. I thought it sucked!"

You have a column of 800-2000 words to fill, depending on the paper and how popular you are. And you have to give clear logical reasons to why you don't like whatever it is you don't like (by the way, I actually love Dirty Dancing). You could harp on the music of Dirty Dancing as not immersive enough. You could say the sister character, as well as the rest of the family wasn't believable. You could decide that the ending completely took you out of it, as those two just didn't make sense as a couple. But it's like being on a debate team, you have to have a clear, concise reason and be able to defend that reason.

That being said, this whole journalistic ethics debate we have going on right now does not seem to understand that. Anyone that is out there right now can pick up Gears Of War 2 and say they didn't care for the game because it was horribly sexist because Marcus Feonix's arms are bigger than his head. I don't know why that would be sexist, but I was talking about that game with a friend earlier, so that's where my brain is going.

The reviewer has every right to say that, even if every other reviewer out there gave the game a 10/10, and this reviewer gave it a 7/10. As long as it is a concise article that doesn't just say "I hate it!" over and over, scrawled in monkey's blood on a napkin from a local diner, you've got an article that follows the guidelines set. They don't have to take out their feelings, because that is what makes a review. I'm not reading a review to find out that it's a video game, or what the specs are. I can read the back of the game for that.

Granted, you try to say that to someone on the GG side, and you get talked into circles until you just decide it's easier to teach a dog to drive a car than to continue to the conversation. So I guess the point is moot all together.

Exactly. By the definitions that the GamerGate people are using, PewDiePie would count as a "journalist". And clearly there are zero standards which that guy's working by.

The other idea that there is this pervasiveness of journalists pushing an ideology in their reviews is also quite frustrating in and of itself. First, lets go with the premise there is. That all the reviewers are pushing to change games as they have been for years to a politically correct romp any 10 year old can play without getting offended.

They have every right to do this. That is their first amendment right as a journalist to be protected in their free speech by the government while they publish things that people may or may not like. They can not be censored for that, the market would censor them for us, and by market, I mean the consumer base that would be reading them. Second, as long as they're abiding by the rules, saying this is sexist because of x, y, and z, then they again are doing a proper review. If this is something that a person doesn't like, or even agree with, they have every right to find a reviewer that doesn't feel that way. There are dozens upon dozes of them on the major sites, and I'd say at least a hundred, or more, on youtube that are somewhat well known. And more that are willing to take their place any day.

But the truth of the matter is? There is no overt, in your face, ideological take over of games reviews. There's just people that notice trends. And the trend right now is that people are willing to look at the gaming culture and see that there are more women playing games, more minorities that are playing games, more people in general, and that inclusiveness is not a bad idea. Having characters that are one dimensional and there for eye candy is just not going to be as profitable as having a well written, fun to play female character.

Now some people are going to point to Lara Croft and say she's a well written fun to play female character. I say she's kind of psychotic, plus that near rape scene was completely unnecessary. Other people might turn to Elizabeth in Bioshock Infinite was a great female character, and we just want to play her. It depends on the point of view, but the fact that we're talking about it doesn't mean that reviewers are trying to take away games, or think that gamers are sexist, they're trying to bring about a dialogue that it's past time we have.

It's 2014 for goodness sakes, the gaming industry is 40 years old, it's a big boy now. It doesn't need everyone protecting it any more. It can stand on it's own two feet.

... aw, I like the new Lara Croft.

Otherwise, I agree with all of your points.

 

[Bruce]

"Journalistic integrity" has been the fig leaf over the flaccid, disfigured, wart-covered genitalia that is the GamerGate movement since its inception. I come here to remove it.

The problem with asking for journalistic integrity is that you're not asking for it from actual journalists. Does Yatzhee have a degree in journalism? Do any of the guys at Giant Bomb or Destructoid? Guys, this isn't some Woodward and Bernstein level stuff here. Nobody's going to get beheaded for uncovering the secret munitions factories being built by Activision as part of their new viral marketing campaign for Call of Duty.

These people are product reviewers. The only events that they cover are trade shows. The only stories that they break are reposting PR packets from AAA studios. The standards you're asking for don't apply to them because they're not important enough to be that rigorous. Seriously, this is a hobby. These guys aren't Time Magazine. They're Fisherman's Weekly. They're maybe a step up from Cosmo and a step down from Parade. And that's being generous.

If you seriously think that "journalistic integrity" is an issue here then you don't understand what either of those words mean. And you clearly don't understand the relative lack of importance that your hobby has next to real news.

I am not a gamergate supporter - but you're kind of wrong.

You're still a journalist even if you don't have the degree, if you make your living reporting news.

All a degree in journalism offers really is the training to do a better job of it.

Review is a form of editorial, which is still a journalistic function.

The standards actually do still apply.

And while one can say that gaming is relatively unimportant, ethical standards are standards. They don't go away because what you're reporting on ultimately doesn't matter all that much.

 

[BillyBlackSheep]

"Journalistic integrity" has been the fig leaf over the flaccid, disfigured, wart-covered genitalia that is the GamerGate movement since its inception. I come here to remove it.

The problem with asking for journalistic integrity is that you're not asking for it from actual journalists. Does Yatzhee have a degree in journalism? Do any of the guys at Giant Bomb or Destructoid? Guys, this isn't some Woodward and Bernstein level stuff here. Nobody's going to get beheaded for uncovering the secret munitions factories being built by Activision as part of their new viral marketing campaign for Call of Duty.

These people are product reviewers. The only events that they cover are trade shows. The only stories that they break are reposting PR packets from AAA studios. The standards you're asking for don't apply to them because they're not important enough to be that rigorous. Seriously, this is a hobby. These guys aren't Time Magazine. They're Fisherman's Weekly. They're maybe a step up from Cosmo and a step down from Parade. And that's being generous.

If you seriously think that "journalistic integrity" is an issue here then you don't understand what either of those words mean. And you clearly don't understand the relative lack of importance that your hobby has next to real news.

I am not a gamergate supporter - but you're kind of wrong.

You're still a journalist even if you don't have the degree, if you make your living reporting news.

All a degree in journalism offers really is the training to do a better job of it.

Review is a form of editorial, which is still a journalistic function.

The standards actually do still apply.

And while one can say that gaming is relatively unimportant, ethical standards are standards. They don't go away because what you're reporting on ultimately doesn't matter all that much.

Review is opinion. It doesn't have anything to do with journalistic integrity. And especially the kind of reviews that are prevalent in this industry. There are zero standards being applied to Zero Punctuation, for example. Hell, if we really wanted to get into this GamerGate discussion then why hasn't Yahtzee been doxxed a million times over? He was partial owner of a bar that held launch events for games. He's more suspect than Zoe Quinn, at least.

The ethical standards may not disappear but the industry simply isn't all that impactful in the world. Nothing about video games justifies GamerGate. It's like finding out that the neighborhood newsletter run by the highschool journalism class is running favorable editorials about the school and then firebombing the whole neighborhood in response.

 

[Redlin5_v1legacy]

The only truth I know about GG is that not everyone wants to talk about it here. The Topics created about it are flooding Off Topic here and its not uncommon to have four or more new GG threads next to each other under the big GG thread.

I'm not for censorship, I'm glad Greg Tito left the discussion open. That's something I applaud.

Its just gotten to the point where a Sub-Forum would ease a lot of anxiety around here.

[sup][sup][sup]FYI, I've heard the OP's opinion on GamerGate restated in several forms not only in the new general GG thread but in the Zoe Quinn thread as well. People making new threads about this is getting VERY irritating.[/sup][/sup][/sup]

 

[know whan purr tick]

I like how Thanos2k presented it, from another thread:

I've been starting to see this argument being put forth by anti-GG people who actually try to engage on the journalistic ethical issues:

"What's wrong with game reviewers injecting personal agendas in reviews? It's their opinion, ok? If you don't like it, don't read it!"

I'm going to do a allegory synopsis of Gamergate that hopefully even non-gamers can understand.

Imagine you are a Windows PC user, like 93% of people are. ( http://www.netmarketshare.com/operating-system-market-share.aspx?qprid=10&qpcustomd=0 )

You go to hypothetical tech journalism sites like pcworld.com and ilovecomputers.com to get software and technology news/reviews. Windows 7 is about to come out, and you're not sure whether it's worth upgrading your Windows XP or not (you skipped Vista after all). So you go to pcworld to see the review of Windows 7.

The review curiously doesn't talk much about Windows 7 other than some cursory descriptions and spends the majority of the review talking about how inferior Windows is compared to Mac OSX and how the design of OSX is way better. In the end, you don't know much about Windows 7, but other places seem to indicate that it's way better than XP so you buy it and are completely satisfied. You take note of the tech journalist who made that curious review.

Fast forward a few years later, and Windows 8 is coming out. That tech journalist has now inexplicably become the editor at pcworld, and the site now seems to contain a disproportionate amount of content focused on praising Macs. Many articles even appear to call the intelligence of Windows users into question. The review on Windows 8, again by the same reviewer as before, is yet more praising of the advantages of Macs and the disadvantages of Windows, concluding that Windows 8 is a mediocre OS unsuitable for anyone, and that anyone who buys it is a fool who is against technological progress that only Macs can provide.

You're kind of pissed now, and post a comment under the review questioning its veracity and why they assigned the review of Windows to someone who clearly hates Windows. The editor appears and mocks your comment, before locking your ability to post under that review.

You go to another one of your news sites and it's the same thing - bashing Windows and praising Macs. Articles highlighting software for Macs seems disproportionate to other content. What was once mostly informational pieces have predominantly become opinion pieces and editorials. What's going on? You check online again to see if you're going crazy - nope, Windows is still used by >90% of computer owners. Who are they writing for? Why the obvious agenda?

Weeks later you find out that not only have the reviewers at your site been collaborating with their competitor sites in order to intentionally bash Windows, but said reviewers and sites have been receiving free hardware from Apple. People keep digging and find that said reviewers and even site editors and owners have been partying at Steve Jobs' house regularly over the past few years and are friends with numerous Apple employees and Macintosh software developers, whose obscure software has been featured numerous times, all with glowing reviews and presented as superior to other software that most other people in the world are using. The "software program of the year" that was highly decorated last year which most users felt was a strangely mediocre Mac program turns out to have been partially funded by those sites, and they financially benefit from sales of this software.

You're mad now. You go onto pcworld and in their user feedback forum ask them to address the allegations that has arisen against their site. Your post is civil and contains no profanity. You are instantly banned from the site and your post is deleted. You notice other posts appearing and disappearing just as quickly, all questioning the integrity of that site. You try reddit - and you're instantly banned there too despite your post not breaking any of the site's rules. You notice on Twitter a reddit admin chatting amicably with an employee from pcworld who had just banned you.

Exactly one week later, you discover to your dismay that every single one of the PC sites you visit in addition to certain other tangentially related technology sites have nearly simultaneously run articles with titles like "Windows is Over", "Windows Users are Dead", and "The Death of Windows and the Macs who killed them" filled with nothing but vitriol insulting people who use Windows. They say that you are an "obtuse shit slinger" and are responsible for harassing Mac users everywhere. Some of the journalists who wrote these articles are seen on Twitter threatening Windows developers that if they don't stop making Windows software they'll end their career. Some suggest that Windows users are evil because "Windows users are the source of all malware and viruses." (I shit you not, a Mac fanatic once said that to me)

But you don't hate Macs. You used a Mac in one of your college classes and you never felt that there was anything wrong with them. One of your friends owns only Apple stuff and you get along just fine with him. You also have no issue with people making software exclusively for Macs - it's just not for you. You have no idea why all these sites that once provided quality PC coverage now seemingly hate you. And aren't these journalists supposed to be professionals? Why are they swearing at their audience? Do they seriously not see how disgraceful and juvenile they're acting?

Turns out you're not alone. Countless other Windows users are sick and tired of being insulted by these sites and shamed for their choice in computer operating system, a choice that is shared by the majority of the world. You're sick of these journalists not providing unbiased PC coverage on sites that used to provide you with useful and valuable information. You start to demand ethical reform from the industry, but these sites won't even entertain the conversation. They shut down any conversation while insulting you behind your back.

A similar situation has happened with video games and video game journalism, and this is why I am a proponent of Gamergate.

Its clear that aspects of gamergate have different importance rankings for the many individuals and how its come to be understood. Again, I just like how the quote was put together - not claiming its gospel but it is a perspective I will say is shared.

 

[Irick]

Absolutely none of that applies to product reviews. You could potentially pervert the definitions that you've provided to reporting on corporate transactions but that's never covered by the majority of gaming media. Reviewing a product is NOT the dissemination of news or information. It's opinion. Clearly.

Opinion is news. It is also information.
All of it applies to product reviews. Product reviews are journalism.

There is a specific set of standards that have to be met for critics and editorial staff alike. I know this from working on a paper, though I worked primarily as a part time columnist, not as a critic. I was more editorial I guess. The point is you can't just go "I don't like Dirty Dancing. I thought it sucked!"

You have a column of 800-2000 words to fill, depending on the paper and how popular you are. And you have to give clear logical reasons to why you don't like whatever it is you don't like (by the way, I actually love Dirty Dancing). You could harp on the music of Dirty Dancing as not immersive enough. You could say the sister character, as well as the rest of the family wasn't believable. You could decide that the ending completely took you out of it, as those two just didn't make sense as a couple. But it's like being on a debate team, you have to have a clear, concise reason and be able to defend that reason.

That being said, this whole journalistic ethics debate we have going on right now does not seem to understand that. Anyone that is out there right now can pick up Gears Of War 2 and say they didn't care for the game because it was horribly sexist because Marcus Feonix's arms are bigger than his head. I don't know why that would be sexist, but I was talking about that game with a friend earlier, so that's where my brain is going.

The reviewer has every right to say that, even if every other reviewer out there gave the game a 10/10, and this reviewer gave it a 7/10. As long as it is a concise article that doesn't just say "I hate it!" over and over, scrawled in monkey's blood on a napkin from a local diner, you've got an article that follows the guidelines set. They don't have to take out their feelings, because that is what makes a review. I'm not reading a review to find out that it's a video game, or what the specs are. I can read the back of the game for that.

Granted, you try to say that to someone on the GG side, and you get talked into circles until you just decide it's easier to teach a dog to drive a car than to continue to the conversation. So I guess the point is moot all together.

Ahem.
I like you, so I'm not going to harp on the slight generalization there, I do it enough. :3

Anyway, I agree with you pretty much entirely. As long as a reviewer justifies why an aspect of a game (including sexism or sexist elements) contributed to their overall experience, that's fine. However, I believe that conflicts of interests should be divulged, I disagree with the use of a numerical ratings system because of how abused it is outside of editorial commentary such as in determining raises and it makes it entirely possible to separate the review from the score. I think that that is a serious consideration that needs to be made, because as it stands it is mostly a useless abstraction of the critical commentary that only serves really no contextualizing purpose.

These are just a few of my issues that I feel plague games journalism, and I kinda resent being told that they are not important or not up for debate because of a mostly unrelated topic. I don't say the unrelated topic isn't worth discussion, but why does it make my issues somehow less relevant? Not really directed at you, more just the general sentiment I get.

 

[Diablo2000]

"Journalistic integrity" has been the fig leaf over the flaccid, disfigured, wart-covered genitalia that is the GamerGate movement since its inception. I come here to remove it.

The problem with asking for journalistic integrity is that you're not asking for it from actual journalists. Does Yatzhee have a degree in journalism? Do any of the guys at Giant Bomb or Destructoid? Guys, this isn't some Woodward and Bernstein level stuff here. Nobody's going to get beheaded for uncovering the secret munitions factories being built by Activision as part of their new viral marketing campaign for Call of Duty.

These people are product reviewers. The only events that they cover are trade shows. The only stories that they break are reposting PR packets from AAA studios. The standards you're asking for don't apply to them because they're not important enough to be that rigorous. Seriously, this is a hobby. These guys aren't Time Magazine. They're Fisherman's Weekly. They're maybe a step up from Cosmo and a step down from Parade. And that's being generous.

If you seriously think that "journalistic integrity" is an issue here then you don't understand what either of those words mean. And you clearly don't understand the relative lack of importance that your hobby has next to real news.

I am not a gamergate supporter - but you're kind of wrong.

You're still a journalist even if you don't have the degree, if you make your living reporting news.

All a degree in journalism offers really is the training to do a better job of it.

Review is a form of editorial, which is still a journalistic function.

The standards actually do still apply.

And while one can say that gaming is relatively unimportant, ethical standards are standards. They don't go away because what you're reporting on ultimately doesn't matter all that much.

Review is opinion. It doesn't have anything to do with journalistic integrity. And especially the kind of reviews that are prevalent in this industry. There are zero standards being applied to Zero Punctuation, for example. Hell, if we really wanted to get into this GamerGate discussion then why hasn't Yahtzee been doxxed a million times over? He was partial owner of a bar that held launch events for games. He's more suspect than Zoe Quinn, at least.

The ethical standards may not disappear but the industry simply isn't all that impactful in the world. Nothing about video games justifies GamerGate. It's like finding out that the neighborhood newsletter run by the highschool journalism class is running favorable editorials about the school and then firebombing the whole neighborhood in response.

The whole argument falls apart when they themselfs identify themselfs as journalist, thefore being bound by responsability and ethics the job brings. And a lot of them actually don't only write reviews, but writes jornalistics texts. If they are doing as a side thing, they shouldn't get a free pass because "They Aren't Journalist".

Kinda agree with you on the review front, it's a opinion. There's no objectivity in reviewing a videogame, too many genres, too many variebles. They are things you can view that way, but in the end comes to an opinion.

 

[Thanatos2k]

"Journalistic integrity" has been the fig leaf over the flaccid, disfigured, wart-covered genitalia that is the GamerGate movement since its inception. I come here to remove it.

The problem with asking for journalistic integrity is that you're not asking for it from actual journalists. Does Yatzhee have a degree in journalism? Do any of the guys at Giant Bomb or Destructoid? Guys, this isn't some Woodward and Bernstein level stuff here. Nobody's going to get beheaded for uncovering the secret munitions factories being built by Activision as part of their new viral marketing campaign for Call of Duty.

As one AAA developer was quoted as saying - "If you aren't a journalist, then don't come to E3."

These glorified bloggers want to have their cake and eat it too. They want all access to industry events, free swag, in advance review copies and builds that would be privledged to actual journalists, but also want to disavow any notion that they have to conform to any reasonable set of ethics.

It's unacceptable and the excuse that "Well they were never journalists" doesn't fly.

 

[BillyBlackSheep]

"Journalistic integrity" has been the fig leaf over the flaccid, disfigured, wart-covered genitalia that is the GamerGate movement since its inception. I come here to remove it.

The problem with asking for journalistic integrity is that you're not asking for it from actual journalists. Does Yatzhee have a degree in journalism? Do any of the guys at Giant Bomb or Destructoid? Guys, this isn't some Woodward and Bernstein level stuff here. Nobody's going to get beheaded for uncovering the secret munitions factories being built by Activision as part of their new viral marketing campaign for Call of Duty.

As one AAA developer was quoted as saying - "If you aren't a journalist, then don't come to E3."

These glorified bloggers want to have their cake and eat it too. They want all access to industry events, free swag, in advance review copies and builds that would be privledged to actual journalists, but also want to disavow any notion that they have to conform to any reasonable set of ethics.

It's unacceptable and the excuse that "Well they were never journalists" doesn't fly.

That just sounds like a complete abuse of the word journalism to me. What product reviewers are is advertisers, essentially. There's a reason why the so-called journalists at the Escapist are at the same level as the Youtube Let's Players. Because they don't exist for any other reason but to sell games. Any integrity on their part is an illusion. You continue to read their stuff because you want to be advertised to about the games you're looking forward to. And they get paid and get perks for being good at selling Activision's or EA's or Gearbox's brand.