RAD episode 297- Superman returns
Seeing the Love: My Time at Video Game Fan Fest
Ubisoft at E3 is AWESOME!
GView Mini : Strength of the Sword 3 Review
BT Podcast 59: Sometimes Tentacles Happen
Posted By Robert G. about 6 months ago
Why report when you can fabricate?
Right away I admit to being a tad biased in this report. This is mostly due to the fact that its depressing to see an industry-wide issue continue to go unchecked. Hell, here at Blistered Thumbs we are not immune to being duped either, but its disheartening when a website like Gamersyndrome pretty much fools everyone for a few days.
For those not in the know, Gamersyndrome is a gaming website that about two days ago, posted up a long interview. The interview, of course, was a sit down discussion with BioWare to talk about Mass Effect 3, and the future of the series for both re-releases on the Wii U and the rough date of release for Mass Effect 4.
And it was all a lie. You heard that right. The entire interview (which has since been taken down) was fabricated by this journalist. The kicker, the deception was posted on December 5th, only to be retracted a week later, after several other news sites had reported on the story in their own way.
The official word from Gamersyndrome is that the information from the interview is stemming from an “unreliable source,” and is now investigating the issue. Electronic Arts and BioWare have also come out against the interview, saying that no questions between Gamersyndrome and their team, specifically by one of Mass Effect’s producer Mike Gamble, ever took place. Most of the sites above had already printed a retraction in the form of an update from the original story, while other sites such as joystiq have had the article itself pulled mysteriously during the day.
But frankly, the damage has been done. Gaming journalism already has a major image problem regarding honesty and integrity as it is, from allegations of favoritism and pay offs, to just sheer poor article writing and deliberately editorializing facts for sensationalist headlines. Compound this with that can’t be verified to be true or not, it is a wonder anyone takes us as an industry seriously.
It does highlight a major problem regarding the news cycle of various websites? How do we verify information before it is published? Of course we need to begin to discern the difference between pure blogger sites, and actual gaming news. The websites posted above are emblematic of what gaming news should be, and that is the model we, as journalists, should follow.
So Gamersyndrome, it is too little, too late for any apology or 11th hour edit. But we as the bulwark between the industry and the fans should also know better. Hopefully we can learn from this in the end, and do our homework before posting news.
Sources: Gamersyndrome
“Gaming Journalism” at large has never had much integrity. Even in the little time I’ve been actively following gaming news, I’ve seen a great lack of it.
It isn’t their fault, though, when you have companies like Konami and Square Enix pulling advertising and refusing to offer review copies after the site gives their games a bad score. I think the Kane and Lynch debacle is the poster-child for how many sites are not only beholden to publishers, but they have to be for their own survival.
That was mostly due to Gamespot having an incompetent EIC at the time, who got fired for letting Gerstmann go. It is really both sides at fault for trying to learn their place, so to speak, over publishers being the only entity that is against journalists.
I could just be reading way too much into what you’re saying, but it feels like you’re accepting defeat, like “this is the way it’s been, oh well”
I feel that it’s pretty sad that I have to wonder if a game review site is on the take, or is softening their language so they don’t hurt themselves financially.
This isn’t the only industry I get weird about when it comes to critic sites. I feel like a film critic could possibly be swayed when they’re invited on set, get free stuff, meet directors, etc.
Oh, that frigging Kane and Lynch thing. Still get a bad itch over that.
If theirs anything l learned about Video Game journalism this year is that it has no standards, at all.
You got the dead eyed reviewers like Geoff Kieghley surrounded by sponsorships to Rab Florence’s controversial article criticising the GMAs and questioning reviewers like Lauren Wainwright – whose behaviour sounds like she’s in bed with Tomb Raider’s PR team. And it doesn’t help that she responded by threatening legal action against him, all over a little scepticism.
I didn’t hear about this, why would she threaten legal action against opinions?
Lauren wanted to censor the two paragraphs about her in the article, she believes it was bashing her carrier as a Journalist. It also doesn’t help that she is part of the British press and accusations of libelity are extremely harsh in the UK. Eurogamer censored the article, sent an apology and Florence had to quit his job.
You can read a whole overview of the affair here if you want: http://penny-arcade.com/report/editorial-article/mcvs-lauren-wainwright-english-libel-law-and-the-gaming-press-why-this-stor
it is a good read.
Early 90′s EGM and Official Playsation UK magazine were often accused of writing up favourable previews and reviews before they cleaned up their act afterwards so yeah; the notion of journalistic integrity in videogames has been a bone of contention in some circles.
Many circles, still to this day. More often than not, it’s people who hate that CoD or Halo got a near perfect or perfect score, but then there are claims that make you think about what exactly is going on in the industry.
Dammit! And all this time i believed Zero really WAS MegaMan X’s faithful canine companion! My world is shattered…
Was only a matter of time before the Gaming Journalism fell into yet another of the Music Journalisms errors again.
you’re not saying Fox News is better than gaming journalism, are you?
WHAT THE HELL Is Gamersyndrome, and why would people jump on their news so easily? Are y’all that scoop hungry? It doesn’t mean that their site is incapable of getting a scoop, but even big veteran websites have been known to get things wrong.
No one is begrudging them for getting something wrong. They basically lied to their readers. They also kept this lie going for several days and didn’t even really fess up when the truth was revealed from the very people they claimed to have interviewed.
This stunt also killed their chances of getting any big scoops for the future. Do you think developers and game companies will want to do an interview for a site that blatantly lies about them?
They weren’t wrong. They made it up. It never existed in the first place to be reported wrong. Be like if I wrote up an interview with you saying you had a bunch of hobos buried in your basement.
Gaming journalism isn’t any better or worse than any other kind of journalism that depends on advertising revenue, espcially those kinds of journalism who report on a specific industry and are therefore tied to the health of said industry, whether it’s video games, sports, or product reviews. Everything you listed in the fifth paragraph can be applied to those. From what I’ve seen of Blistered Thumbs if you make a mistake you quickly own up to it and you’ve never flat-out fabricated something, and that’s more than can be said for those so-called mainstream sites.
No, the difference comes in that games journalism is essentially selling video games to their reader, and we don’t need them to be swayed by advertisers.
I don’t think it’s exactly the same as all forms of journalism, but it is the same as consumer-based journalism.
We’re not exactly selling games to our readers. What is in it for us? Sales based marketing requires a quid pro quo and reviewing and news reporting doesn’t make profits that correlating with the sales of the items we cover.
If that were the case why would anyone ever score a game badly? Review copies could be seen as a payment, if you really wanted to break it down, but what benefit would we gain from giving poor scores? It would a a self defeating business model. No manufacturer is going to supply TV’s to a retailer if their staff tell customers that the product is rubbish.
You are one of many sources for a reader to decide whether they will buy a product or not. Some people stay with just one trusted source: IGN, here, Giant Bomb, etc. So recommending a game (or not) is given as much power as a reader wants to give it.
I’m just saying that people do take reviews seriously, to a point that they might buy a game.
What’s in it for you? People come back to your site, they tell their friends, you get more readers.
There are quite a few claims (I actually don’t fall into that conspiracy talk) that games journalists might give a game a higher score because the developers or publishers are advertising on their site. I believe that critics and sites have a lot more integrity than that, but there are quite a few sites out there. I don’t know who’s behind all these sites. I don’t know if a site that’s only been around a few years is totally above board.
A lot of sites are quick to emphasise that their advertising department and editorial department are entirely separate entities…and that’s how it should be.
There is a level of consumer advice when it comes to games magazines, for many people that’s the whole point of review sites. I think too many in the industry don’t realise this and are overly comfortable with the free swag and special treatment they often get from PR people and even games companies themselves. The shadier practices – such as those exposed by Rab Florence on Eurogamer – need to continue to be exposed. The press packs and goody bags need to go, it should simply be review copies of the game and nothing else…anything else received should be given to Child’s Play or some other charitable cause. PR people need to be kept entirely separate from the editorial staff. By all means they should be able to facilitate coverage of their games, but not by cosying up directly to those who are supposed to be evaluating the game. In the wake of the Eurogamer fiasco, I saw tweets from several games journalists talking about the friends they have in game company PR. No matter how much they claim otherwise, there has to be a level of influence there when your friend is in your ear.
More sites need to be 100% transparent about where and how reviews take place, were expenses paid, was it a review event etc. Suspicions will die down with more transparency, right now people make a ton of assumptions because it seems like the stuff going on behind the scenes is being purposefully hidden from view and swept under the rug…not a good impression to give to the people looking to your publication for advice.