Originally Posted by Raitosaito
I don't think everybody believes positive reviews are bought out or payed for. A lot of discussion earlier was how people can be influenced on a subliminal level, and choose to say it's impossible such a thing can happen. Shawn Elliot posted something earlier in this thread citing some evidence for that.
No one is saying they just go around handing out great scores, but that the relationship between a Journalist and a PR should not be something as comfortable as it is now.
More on that note-
Originally Posted by Dawg:
"No, that's just overgeneralization. By your logic, it is impossible to write a negative review/article if the PR gifts/food/whatever was excellent? Because, we've had plenty negatieve reviews about bad games, even if the PR was good. I remember getting a very cool Brink PR package, but that game was awful. Thus it received an awful review. PR gift was cool, but that's it."
Not at all. It's interesting that your defense is to dismiss the notion that influence works in subtle ways that we aren't always aware of (as opposed to the popular notion of blatant bribery and "money hats") as generalization, and then use as your argument the assumption that any PR interaction at all would have to guarantee a good review if in fact the psychological research was right. That is gross generalization... or you just aren't getting the argument. I can't offer a crash course on the topic at the moment as I'm at work, so instead imagine it from the "appearance of impropriety" angle.
You're publishing a review. Pretend you're willing to include a sidebar with the subhead "Things that can have no influence at all on my perspective." In this sidebar are photos of you sharing single malt Scotch and haute cuisine with PR people. There are photos of the array of tchotchkes you received at the assorted press events for the title that you attended. There are also photos taken from your night out with your hosts. Despite your confidence in you being the rare exception to rules about human behavior, how likely is your audience to come to the same conclusion?
Apparently, judges' glucose levels affect their rulings: http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/no...ons-of-judges/
And yet you expect your audience to regard you as a Randian ubermensch rational above your biology.