Journalistic Independence in Games Journalism

[NahNah]

Hi all,

I wanted to gather some thoughts on this issue for some research i'm doing.

How much of an issue is it for you? Obviously with serious geo-political issues we'd want the least biased and independent reporting possible. Should games journalism be held to the same standard? Do you think industry influence on games journalism is inevitable and a non-issue?

If you could also complete this really short questionnaire I would be really grateful: https://www.surveymonkey.com/s/R5VJ7Z9

 

[Laggen]

For me at least its a non-issue... I only read the headlines on "gaming websites"

Should games journalism be held to the same standard?

Probably... Is it possible? don't think so

Take everything you read on the internet with a pinch of salt, no matter who is typing it, All you can do is read, research and confirm (if you care for the topic).

 

[tippy2k2]

I think I'm just going to sticky the answer I gave about game journalism for everyone's convenience until everyone stops going nuts...

My response from "Why do people think game journalists are corrupt" for it's basically the same thread being asked in a different way:

Let me start this off by saying that I don't believe game journalism is corrupt. Taking a stack of cash for a good review on a website doesn't make sense for either the Publisher (bribing everyone is going to get expensive) or the Reviewer (credibility will sink your site and you'd have to find a Publisher willing to play ball; see 3 words earlier).

With that said, I can see why people might think it and it is indirectly a problem.

Game Journalists get a LOT of free shit. Like....a LOT a lot of free shit. The games are free from the Publisher. They get flown out to "special events" where they get more free shit. Publisher PR crews send out free shit to journalists.

Along with that, the Publishers have all of the power in this relationship (It's similar to the movie theaters and the movie makers relationship). While a Reviewer could go independent and buy all their own stuff to be free of the "bribery-looking relationship" described above, most sites would die if that cut-off occurred. Also, unlike the normal press, the Publishers have no real "freedom of information" or anything like that. They tell you what they want to tell you and that's about it. Sometimes things get leaked but overall, the Publishers control the information while the Reviewers report it.

There is no direct bribery going on (or I'd like to think it's incredibly rare that you get a "Kane & Lynch" fiasco) but I can see why it begins to look shady to some people when the two parties are nuzzled so close to one another.

The really important stuff for my answer has been underlined for your convenience. It is of zero importance to me because I realize that it's literally impossible to do so why get so worked up and worried about it?

EDIT: Also, if you want me to do your survey, you must pass the ultimate test of testiness! Answer this riddle!

What is your favorite gaming magazine/website/news source (I promise it's not a trick question)?

 

[MirenBainesUSMC]

Its no cleaner than the regular news services for both prime time TV and cable.

Let us put it this way, the media and journalism aren't independent and they haven't been for a very long time. Its kind of hard to be independent when the biggest news organizations are owned by individuals whom themselves have huge ties to governments around the world and basically can dictate what is to be reported and in what slant that the power structure wants.


Just about any medium has its questionable practices, particularly industry oriented media.

 

[Rayce Archer]

All critics are suspect. Film critics rely on early screenings, game critics rely on early access, and I assume book critics have something similar going on. All this advance material, most of it free, comes from businesses; businesses that have the power to stop the flow of spice if they don't like the reviewers' take on it.

Look it this way. Go right now and watch some Top Gear. Marvel as they say some million dollar car has mushy brakes or the brand new Rolls Royce isn't as practical as a Golf. Now try to find an analog in any of the big review sites, like IGN talking about how you should skip the new Call of Duty because it's just a less good medal of honor. Then watch how much more frank they are on indi and budget titles, where they don't have to worry about waking the giant.

More than that, the press defines what really is a "AAA" release by manning the hype cannons. Look how much garbage gets massive print articles and barrages of front-page coverage, just because it comes from a company on the fortune 500 or is part of a franchise that needs to hurry up and die of old age. Again, it all comes down to pleasing big business so that the work can continue unabated, even if that maybe means fudging the integrity of that work.

I frankly don't care if some ass told everyone the girl who dumped him gave some dude a beej just because he almost reviewed her game or whatever, I don't care if Moviebob is a social justice warrior because he yelled "New York Sucks" at a Republican during the World Series, the real issue of integrity in GARMES JOURNALIZM is and always will be the suspect proportionality of criticism and coverage to the "importance" of a game's publishers.

 

[NahNah]

I think I'm just going to sticky the answer I gave about game journalism for everyone's convenience until everyone stops going nuts...

My response from "Why do people think game journalists are corrupt" for it's basically the same thread being asked in a different way:

Let me start this off by saying that I don't believe game journalism is corrupt. Taking a stack of cash for a good review on a website doesn't make sense for either the Publisher (bribing everyone is going to get expensive) or the Reviewer (credibility will sink your site and you'd have to find a Publisher willing to play ball; see 3 words earlier).

With that said, I can see why people might think it and it is indirectly a problem.

Game Journalists get a LOT of free shit. Like....a LOT a lot of free shit. The games are free from the Publisher. They get flown out to "special events" where they get more free shit. Publisher PR crews send out free shit to journalists.

Along with that, the Publishers have all of the power in this relationship (It's similar to the movie theaters and the movie makers relationship). While a Reviewer could go independent and buy all their own stuff to be free of the "bribery-looking relationship" described above, most sites would die if that cut-off occurred. Also, unlike the normal press, the Publishers have no real "freedom of information" or anything like that. They tell you what they want to tell you and that's about it. Sometimes things get leaked but overall, the Publishers control the information while the Reviewers report it.

There is no direct bribery going on (or I'd like to think it's incredibly rare that you get a "Kane & Lynch" fiasco) but I can see why it begins to look shady to some people when the two parties are nuzzled so close to one another.

The really important stuff for my answer has been underlined for your convenience. It is of zero importance to me because I realize that it's literally impossible to do so why get so worked up and worried about it?

EDIT: Also, if you want me to do your survey, you must pass the ultimate test of testiness! Answer this riddle!

What is your favorite gaming magazine/website/news source (I promise it's not a trick question)?

Hmmm since I mainly just needed responses for my survey perhaps I should have led with that. It seems that 'gamergate' has made people sick of discussing the state of 'game journalism'.

To answer your riddle. It depends. When deciding what games to buy I look to build a consensus by finding opinions from a variety of sources. When it comes to news and analysis, I like the escapist and eurogamer and their respective forums. Hopefully that's worthy of a survey response

 

[tippy2k2]

To answer your riddle. It depends. When deciding what games to buy I look to build a consensus by finding opinions from a variety of sources. When it comes to news and analysis, I like the escapist and eurogamer and their respective forums. Hopefully that's worthy of a survey response

It is. Although to be fair, you could have said anything and it would have been enough. I always make someone asking for surveys to respond to a question so I know they're not just dumping their homework on us and running.

You'd be surprised how often people do that. This way I know you are coming back and not just using us for homework

 

[Verlander]

None. Gaming isn't important, so I'm happy to listen to the opinions of commenters who I trust up until I don't trust them anymore.

 

[NahNah]

To answer your riddle. It depends. When deciding what games to buy I look to build a consensus by finding opinions from a variety of sources. When it comes to news and analysis, I like the escapist and eurogamer and their respective forums. Hopefully that's worthy of a survey response

It is. Although to be fair, you could have said anything and it would have been enough. I always make someone asking for surveys to respond to a question so I know they're not just dumping their homework on us and running.

You'd be surprised how often people do that. This way I know you are coming back and not just using us for homework

Well its nice you want me back so bad

 

[maxben]

Obviously with serious geo-political issues we'd want the least biased and independent reporting possible.

No one wants this and it doesn't exist. The media that makes money is the one that pushes a particular ideological point of view. There is reason why Fox News and MSNBC make money, or Huffington Post and the Drudge Report. Consumers in geopolitical journalism want to see reality from their point of view and pay for it. Similarly, journalists who write factual articles are the worst paid and the ones no one know, they are on the bottom rung. Often times those articles are just credited to AP and not a person. All well known modern journalists who sell books and speak at conferences work in editorial, agenda-driven work.

 

[veloper]

To answer your riddle. It depends. When deciding what games to buy I look to build a consensus by finding opinions from a variety of sources. When it comes to news and analysis, I like the escapist and eurogamer and their respective forums. Hopefully that's worthy of a survey response

It is. Although to be fair, you could have said anything and it would have been enough. I always make someone asking for surveys to respond to a question so I know they're not just dumping their homework on us and running.

You'd be surprised how often people do that. This way I know you are coming back and not just using us for homework

Well its nice you want me back so bad

Share the results when you're done.

 

[NahNah]

Obviously with serious geo-political issues we'd want the least biased and independent reporting possible.

No one wants this and it doesn't exist. The media that makes money is the one that pushes a particular ideological point of view. There is reason why Fox News and MSNBC make money, or Huffington Post and the Drudge Report. Consumers in geopolitical journalism want to see reality from their point of view and pay for it. Similarly, journalists who write factual articles are the worst paid and the ones no one know, they are on the bottom rung. Often times those articles are just credited to AP and not a person. All well known modern journalists who sell books and speak at conferences work in editorial, agenda-driven work.

I can see your point, maybe I didn't word that particular phrase well. However, I would disagree that 'no one wants this'. Not least many journalists themselves who want to preserve some ethical standards and facts-based journalism, as opposed to the highly agenda-driven output today. If this topic really interests you I'd watch this discussion, it illustrates both sides of the debate really well. On one side Aiden White, director of the Ethical Journalists Network, and on the other RT, who I think represent the commercial, agenda driven journalism you mention very well. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s1Q7weWh1-4

 

[maxben]

Obviously with serious geo-political issues we'd want the least biased and independent reporting possible.

No one wants this and it doesn't exist. The media that makes money is the one that pushes a particular ideological point of view. There is reason why Fox News and MSNBC make money, or Huffington Post and the Drudge Report. Consumers in geopolitical journalism want to see reality from their point of view and pay for it. Similarly, journalists who write factual articles are the worst paid and the ones no one know, they are on the bottom rung. Often times those articles are just credited to AP and not a person. All well known modern journalists who sell books and speak at conferences work in editorial, agenda-driven work.

I can see your point, maybe I didn't word that particular phrase well. However, I would disagree that 'no one wants this'. Not least many journalists themselves who want to preserve some ethical standards and facts-based journalism, as opposed to the highly agenda-driven output today. If this topic really interests you I'd watch this discussion, it illustrates both sides of the debate really well. On one side Aiden White, director of the Ethical Journalists Network, and on the other RT, who I think represent the commercial, agenda driven journalism you mention very well. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s1Q7weWh1-4

But the difference between Aiden and an actual news source is that Aiden runs an organization that gets funded by private money from donors and does not need to fit what the consumer wants. The consumer has over and over shown what they are looking for in their media choices and you can see by the net worth and revenue of news sources to prove it.

By the way, yes, RT is well known as a propaganda mouth for the Russian government, which quite different then Western news which is more consumer driven than top down controlled, though both are not objective. He is mostly arguing against state propaganda in that video. After all, the Guardian that he wrote for is well known as being left leaning in their reporting and that is what their consumers wants from them. He has no issue with having an agenda/ideology, he just wants to soften that (for example, not inciting violence) so it is less extreme, and he wants to ensure that this agenda is not given from government spin machines. He specifically says "I don't think that a bias is problematic". I feel like that point of view is legitimate but that it is a fundamentally different issue than news being a business which is run by basic capitalist laws of supply and demand, and that the news must follow those laws or go bankrupt.

Edit: I was just reading through the comments of that video and I think they further prove my point about what the consumers want (both the pro RT and anti RT comments).

 

[NahNah]

snip

Well, I took it as him being opposed to more than state propaganda. He mentions Fox News and how he believes they can take a strong view and be as propagandist as they like, but he's against that being termed journalism. It may have been an off-the-cuff remark, but I think it illustrates the desire for balance. I think we want more from news media than just following the narrative that best suits our world view. Take the Ukranian conflict again for example, I've seen plenty of evidence of people disappointed in the lack of coverage on the Russian perspective in the western media.

Edit: Also another shameless survey push https://www.surveymonkey.com/s/R5VJ7Z9