Gaming Journalist's Code of Ethics

[Paragon Fury]

Its been a bit of a subject recently in the gaming world of "less-than-ethical" practices by both game makers and games journalists. Everything from accepting bribes for reviews (ME3, DA2, Modern Warfare 3 etc.) to free trips, gifts and other things that can/would color their opinions of the games being reviewed/discussed.

Just looking at a website, even such as the Escapist, you see ads for particular games EVERYWHERE - even ones they're reviewing or about to review. For most this would be a pretty blatant conflict of interest or source of bias. But we seem content to let reviewers and developers get away with it without too much trouble. There certainly seems to be no unified code or standard we hold them to - we'll praise one group for something and then damn another with equal furor for the same thing.

So I thought - why don't we hold reviewers and game commentators to ethical standard like we do other businesses? Why not come up with an agreement/code that we want them to agree to and hold in order for us to trust them and believe what they say? And then I started thinking about what that kind of code would look like. Though this is just an idea, here is what I came up with for a sample:

"I [Name/Organization/Group etc.] understand that my duty as a games journalist is to provide my customers and fellow gamers with timely, accurate and useful information in order to enhance their gaming experience and provide them with information that will be useful in making gaming related decisions such as what games to purchase, accessories to improve their enjoyment of said games and help inform them of important developments and news in the world of gaming.

As such, I will endeavor to ensure my utmost neutrality and avoid bias or things that could be perceived to bias me for/against certain games, topics etc. In pursuit of this goal I promise the following:

- I will NEVER accepted any gifts, items or extraneous items related or unrelated to games or gaming from ANY developer, publisher or related source. I will politely refuse or return ANY such items unopened and unused to the person/group that provided them.

- I will accept ONLY things needed to provide review/commentary on the game/topic at hand, such as a copy of the game.

- While acting in ANY capacity where I would be viewed as a journalist, reviewer or commentator I will conduct myself in a professional, respectful and journalistic fashion.

- If I receive ANY convenience (food, travel etc.) granted to me in the process of reviewing/commentating on gaming I WILL make clear note of it in the associated article/comment/video.

- While I am free to come up with my own review style/system, I WILL ensure that it is clear, concise and easily explained with clear explanations for the good and bad of a particular topic.

- I WILL ensure that before reviewing a game etc. I have spent enough time with in ALL facets in order to be able to provide a comprehensive overview and understanding of the game. I will CLEARLY note in the article/comment/video how much time/what I did with the subject in question by the time of posting.

- I WILL ensure that I put the utmost effort in clarifying when I am discussing facts vs. opinions.

I, the undersigned do understand and acknowledge that as a person/group of integrity and honesty that failure to abide by this agreement is a failure in my duty to my customers to provide the services they seek from and a violation of their trust.

Signed,
[Name/Group/Organization etc.]
[Date]"


Obviously its a rough draft, but I think having something like this and forcing gaming journalists to follow it would dramatically improve the quality of content we receive in regards to information and reviews for gaming.

 

[ninjaRiv]

I like your style! Personally, I try to follow an "always be honest but don't be a prick" journalism code. I see nothing wrong with taking freebies and adverts as long as you don't let it colour your opinion, though. Just don't sign anything.

 

[ninjaRiv]

I think the fact that games journalism is relatively new plays a big part in the situation. Or, rather, that game journalists are only recently being held to the same standards as regular journalists. Also, I don't think they have the same sort of experience and education that regular journalists have so there's a lot of learning to be done, perhaps.

 

[SonOfMethuselah]

This again?
*sigh*

Look: you give me solid, unquestionable, irrefutable PROOF that bribes were ACTUALLY accepted for those games you listed, and maybe I'll listen to the rest of what you have to say. People are quick to throw around accusations when a review goes up that they disagree with, but that's all they do: throw them. They never back them up. Do that for me, and I'll read through the rest of what you have to say.

That's all I want, really: this is the internet. If there were shady, underhanded dealings going on between the people criticizing games, and the companies publishing them, there would be proof somewhere. I've never seen any.

 

[Erttheking]

Yeah I have to agree with SonOfMethuselah. It's really easy to say everyone who had a review that you disagreed with got payed off. It's another thing to actually back up said claim with evidence.

 

[MCerberus]

Unfortunately, a code of ethics isn't worth much unless there is 1. a penalty, legally or professionally and 2. a trade organization there to back up someone. Doctors have the Hippo, I've got PMI standards (and am looking around for a programmer group), unions and sports have CBAs that also include ethical employee behavior... but games journalists only have the threat of 'tattling'... and that would immediately get you blackballed.

Good concept, it's just hard to do.

 

[MindFragged]

Nice idea. However, disregarding McCerberu's good point, you're also expecting higher standards from the gaming media (an increasingly broad and internet-dwelling beast) than most news outlets print or otherwise and that's just with the last condition.... here in the UK anyways...

 

[shrekfan246]

Point the first: What's your proof that people got "paid off" for Mass Effect, Dragon Age, or Modern Warfare?

You didn't like those games?

Prepare for me to blow your mind: I liked Dragon Age II more than Origins. And while I didn't appreciate the stripped-down feeling of the arenas and the dialogue, Mass Effect 3 has my favorite gameplay of the entire franchise, and I think it has the most impactful 'RPG' elements of the three games as well.

Point the second: Why do you care?

I'm assuming you have a website whose reviews you generally agree with, of course, and that you probably generally ignore those which you disagree with. So if we say, for example, that you don't agree with IGN and put no stock in their reviews and as such generally don't read their reviews, why would you give a damn if they're getting "paid off" or not? How would it have any impact on your life in any way whatsoever?

Point the third: Accusations of "bias" are largely absolute tripe being spewed forth by people who can't handle dissenting opinions about things. The gaming industry is pretty large, and as such people with a very large variety of preferences are going to be covering it. There's a reason so many people write reviews, so that you can get all of these different perspectives from different people with different experiences and different preferences. And, guess what? Sometimes your preferences aren't going to line up with those of the majority of critics. And that's okay! Until you start accusing them of being paid off by the publisher, and start accusing other gamers of being apologists or attacking them because they dared to find enjoyment or dared to criticise something you feel strongly about.

Gaming journalism doesn't have some massive conspiracy growing behind the curtains with the greedy publishers. If anything, everywhere except IGN is largely much more critical and scrutinous of video games than they were ten or twenty years ago.

 

[Tanis]

A "code of ethics", in JOURNALISM?

Man...you almost made me laugh up a lung!

The days when ethics and journalism walked hand in hand have long since been over.

Just turn on the TV and you'll see what I mean.

 

[Caffiene]

It's hard to prove bribes have been accepted, but a code could force accusers to actually go out and get evidence to support their arguments, as well as give the journos the ability to politely bite back. Generally, not a bad idea.

By the same token, though, the OP does sort of undermine his own credibility (in an otherwise quite thoughtful post) by making the reference to bribes and then proceeding to talk about acting professionally.

If the OP is intending his ideas to be taken up by game journalists, or particularly some sort of body that would oversee enforcing journalists following it, then he is communicating directly to journalists in a professional context and needs to follow his own advice to act professionally and respectfully, to be aware of all facets, and to be very clear in his writing about facts vs opinions.

 

[RaikuFA]

Point the first: What's your proof that people got "paid off" for Mass Effect, Dragon Age, or Modern Warfare?

You didn't like those games?

Prepare for me to blow your mind: I liked Dragon Age II more than Origins. And while I didn't appreciate the stripped-down feeling of the arenas and the dialogue, Mass Effect 3 has my favorite gameplay of the entire franchise, and I think it has the most impactful 'RPG' elements of the three games as well.

Point the second: Why do you care?

I'm assuming you have a website whose reviews you generally agree with, of course, and that you probably generally ignore those which you disagree with. So if we say, for example, that you don't agree with IGN and put no stock in their reviews and as such generally don't read their reviews, why would you give a damn if they're getting "paid off" or not? How would it have any impact on your life in any way whatsoever?

Point the third: Accusations of "bias" are largely absolute tripe being spewed forth by people who can't handle dissenting opinions about things. The gaming industry is pretty large, and as such people with a very large variety of preferences are going to be covering it. There's a reason so many people write reviews, so that you can get all of these different perspectives from different people with different experiences and different preferences. And, guess what? Sometimes your preferences aren't going to line up with those of the majority of critics. And that's okay! Until you start accusing them of being paid off by the publisher, and start accusing other gamers of being apologists or attacking them because they dared to find enjoyment or dared to criticise something you feel strongly about.

Gaming journalism doesn't have some massive conspiracy growing behind the curtains with the greedy publishers. If anything, everywhere except IGN is largely much more critical and scrutinous of video games than they were ten or twenty years ago.

What about reviewing how XPlay reviewed? That shouldn't be allowed. Thankfully it's dying out.

 

[SonOfMethuselah]

This again?
*sigh*

Look: you give me solid, unquestionable, irrefutable PROOF that bribes were ACTUALLY accepted for those games you listed, and maybe I'll listen to the rest of what you have to say. People are quick to throw around accusations when a review goes up that they disagree with, but that's all they do: throw them. They never back them up. Do that for me, and I'll read through the rest of what you have to say.

That's all I want, really: this is the internet. If there were shady, underhanded dealings going on between the people criticizing games, and the companies publishing them, there would be proof somewhere. I've never seen any.

I think you missed the point of what he is saying...

Spoiler: TLDR:

I remember reading on allot of websites when google+ came out that it was going to "revolutionize" the social networking sphere. These were sites that mostly depicted anything not Apple in a negative light(computerworld, gizmodo), and yet G+ comes out and suddenly it's the best thing ever. How many people use google+ now?

Yet, you can't PROVE that they accepted money to write those articles. But just kind of appeared out of nowhere... and maybe they did it for any number of other reasons, but should you fault someone for thinking some foul play occurred?

Regardless of what proof there may be, the release of google+ saw me stop frequenting those sites. I knew they were all mac fanbois(I hated, but respected them for it), and that's what I expected from them. Not the sudden worship of Google.

But I think some standards might help here too, if they had their own code that all their journalists and reviewers had to follow. I could have shown them previous articles regarding google, and compared it to their google+ articles, and cited parts of their code that they appeared to have breached. They could have issued either a public apology or told me to go fuck myself.

It's hard to prove bribes have been accepted, but a code could force accusers to actually go out and get evidence to support their arguments, as well as give the journos the ability to politely bite back. Generally, not a bad idea.

The problems I have with your use of G+ as an example aside, my biggest issue with the OP is this:

This isn't a code being presented to try and avoid the loss and/or compromise of - for want of a better term - ethics. If it were, I would have no trouble with it. Accountability is never a bad thing. However, the OP is suggesting that such a loss/compromise has already occurred, and is thus attempting to provide a solution for the perceived problem: it's reactive, rather than proactive.

The thing is, I disagree with the notion that there is anything to react to. Given what I know about bloggers (which is quite a bit), I find it difficult to believe that the suggested problem is actually an issue to be dealt with, hence my asking for proof. The trouble with reacting to something you already believe is an issue is that, inevitably, you take a narrow-minded approach against the perceived slight.

Here, for example, is a statement that suggests that the OP's issue is with the business of reviewing games as a whole, rather than individual questionable aspects:

"I WILL ensure that I put the utmost effort in clarifying when I am discussing facts vs. opinions."

A review is an opinion. Full-stop. There is no overarching "objective" criteria for criticizing anything. It is always, always dependent on the individual taste of the critic. If you're going to present a code for someone to follow, you have to understand how they conduct their business first. That's why I asked for proof: the minute the OP proves that there is a leg to stand on, here, then I would agree that there needs to be specific measures taken. Until then, though, you need to find some other way to ensure accountability, rather than try and pass a "code" that restricts the business in ways that would either prevent them entirely from doing there job, or be so loosely defined as to have no purpose.

 

[Something Amyss]

Everything from accepting bribes for reviews (ME3, DA2, Modern Warfare 3 etc.)

Yeah, no. Stop right there. Unless you have proof of this sort of thing, then don't accuse gaming journalism of ethics issues if you will assert such things without any evidence. You can insist they need to justify themselves with something like this, but that then puts them to a higher standard than the other media you supposedly want them to emulate.

And finally:

I WILL ensure that I put the utmost effort in clarifying when I am discussing facts vs. opinions.

This is inane. The "opinion" train is trotted out by people who are unhappy with the results of a review. This, in one sentence, is precisely why nobody should take such a "vow" (rough draft or otherwise) seriously. It's not about ethics, but instead pacifying a fanbase who sees reviews they don't approve of and assumes bribery, coercion, or teh bias.

I think the fact that games journalism is relatively new plays a big part in the situation. Or, rather, that game journalists are only recently being held to the same standards as regular journalists. Also, I don't think they have the same sort of experience and education that regular journalists have so there's a lot of learning to be done, perhaps.

"Regular journalism?" In what sense, though? Reviewers are often encouraged to be positive on the media in question, even if it's bad, in the modern landscape. Being more like most media reviewers means doing exactly what games reviewers have done to get the OP accusing them of bribes--telling them their shit don't stink. More investigative journalism has largely evolved to the point where they have to softball just about any question because anyone of import has figured out they don't have to talk to you if they don't want to. Politics and business especially: you have entire media channels you can use to get the word out.

"Regular journalism" is an endangered species and has little left for games reviewers to aspire to.

Oh look, someone throwing around sensationalist claims of bribery and corruption.

Pray tell, do you have actual solid EVIDENCE of this? You know, something to back your claims?

I am so fucking sick of this.

Maybe we should have a poster code of ethics, vowing to only make responsible and reasonable claims. I wonder what that would look like....

 

[xDarc]

I'm not gonna sit here and demand proof for something I already know happens; it's not a bribe necessarily- but access has a lot to do with it. If you don't play ball with the publishers, then they don't play ball with you. They decide who gets access, they provide instructions on how their game should be reviewed, the implication is that positive reviews are expected for continued preference and early access.

It's a mutually beneficial agreement because ethics doesn't drive internet traffic, being first does- so both sides have a lot to gain. There is no dark parking garage and manila envelopes, nor does there need to be for there to be impropriety.

So yeah, you can have ethical gaming journalist folks who quickly find themselves without early access, without an audience because they are the last ones to get reviews out, and ultimately out of a job. To me, that just shows me that trying to push for ethics in an industry whose primary patronage is impatient, fickle customers is pointless. Such people deserve what they get. They don't care about honest reviews in the first place, they are just looking for an echo chamber to make them feel warm and fuzzy about their purchase.

The people who care about honest reviews wait until the game has come out and read what every day people who have played the game have to say.

All this would do is be another fake thing for so called gaming journalists to point to and say, see- we have a code! Well whoop dee doo, I still don't believe a single word or score you print and will happily wait for a real person to give me a real opinion.

 

[shrekfan246]

Point the first: What's your proof that people got "paid off" for Mass Effect, Dragon Age, or Modern Warfare?

You didn't like those games?

Prepare for me to blow your mind: I liked Dragon Age II more than Origins.

So, would you give Dragon Age 2 a 100% and call it the pinnacle of RPGs and what every other video game should be? Because thats what the Escapist gave it. Not saying the review was bought but that seems a bit strange when so many people hate the game and most of those that dont hate it find it ok.

So?

No, really, so what?

One person thought it was what he wanted other games to strive toward. It happens. Even when so many people hate the game and most of those that don't hate it find it ok. That person just happened to be in a position to review the game for a website, and over two years later people are still bringing it up as some sort of sign of "corruption" around here, which is just stupid. He loved the game. There's absolutely nothing wrong with that. He justified his opinions in the review, and while he may have glossed over the problems he had with the game, he's perfectly entitled to do as such, because in his opinion they never bogged him down enough to be an issue.

What's more strange to me is that people can't let it go that games like Dragon Age II or Mass Effect 3 got critical acclaim. You'd figure they'd have more important things to worry or care about than people liking games that are now more than a year old.

 

[Techno Squidgy]

This again?
*sigh*

Look: you give me solid, unquestionable, irrefutable PROOF that bribes were ACTUALLY accepted for those games you listed, and maybe I'll listen to the rest of what you have to say. People are quick to throw around accusations when a review goes up that they disagree with, but that's all they do: throw them. They never back them up. Do that for me, and I'll read through the rest of what you have to say.

That's all I want, really: this is the internet. If there were shady, underhanded dealings going on between the people criticizing games, and the companies publishing them, there would be proof somewhere. I've never seen any.

Has anyone really been bothered enough to look? The people with kind of skillsets to find out these things usually have bigger things in mind than games journalists giving an inflated score for some swag.

OT:
Seems kind of unnecessary to be honest. If you're really worried about reviewers being bought, watch youtube reviews. At least you'll get honest opinions if not quality journalism.

 

[KeyMaster45]

Its been a bit of a subject recently in the gaming world of "less-than-ethical" practices by both game makers and games journalists. Everything from accepting bribes for reviews (ME3, DA2, Modern Warfare 3 etc.) to free trips, gifts and other things that can/would color their opinions of the games being reviewed/discussed.

I'm with the others in the thread who've pointed this out. All I've ever seen is hearsay, rumor, and conjecture about this kind of thing. Bring me hard evidence and then I might believe you.

As for "ethics" in the field of game journalism, I don't think any really exists, needs to exist, or will exist. What we tenuously refer to as game journalism is nothing more than upscale blogs that simply parrot stories put out by other upscale blogs. Realistically this is all we can ever hope for as gaming is a niche topic to cover and all your news sources are inevitably going to be very tight lipped about potential story topics until it is beneficial to them. Even on the few occasions that a legitimate controversy breaks out it's usually due to one of said sources sticking their foot in their own mouths.

Game journalists are bloggers naively thinking they're just like real reporters. Most are just critics of the art, like Ebert and his ilk, and the rest are Google monkeys that regurgitate stories with their own unwanted opinions peppered on top. So are ethics needed? No, because there are no journalists for said ethics to be enforced upon; just a bunch of bloggers fighting over page views.