Enthusiast press is there to give press to the the hobby they are enthusiastic about to a similar audience. The only way to get any information from the companies is to work with the people who are granted permission by the publishers to distribute it. There's no deep undercover moles, or really any scoops to dish out. There's no major story about Dr. Mario practicing medicine without a license to break. For the most part the enthusiast press are just other people who enjoy video games who also happen to write about them, and are consumers of the product as well.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Games Journalism! Wainwright/Florence/Tomb Raider/Eurogamer/Libel Threats/Doritos
- Thread starter papersleeves
- Start date
- Status
Enthusiast press is there to give press to the the hobby they are enthusiastic about to a similar audience. The only way to get any information from the companies is to work with the people who are granted permission by the publishers to distribute it. There's no deep undercover moles, or really any scoops to dish out. There's no major story about Dr. Mario practicing medicine without a license to break. For the most part the enthusiast press are just other people who enjoy video games who also happen to write about them, and are consumers of the product as well.
TunaMarshmallow
Member
I can just never get upset about any of this stuff. I guess it depends on what your starting-point expectations look like. If you were expecting or hoping that members of the enthusiast press were expert researchers and/or writers, functioning as independent analysts and reporters who were bound (and protected) by professional standards of conduct... then it makes sense that you'd be pretty pissed off.
But come *on*. I can count on one hand the number of game-press folks whose work I'd grade even reasonably well in basic university course focused on analytical writing. Look at these folks' backgrounds (academic and otherwise!), experiences, stated interests, past writing, public conduct at events, and so on. Why would it even cross your mind that the enthusiast press would embody media ideals?
To my mind, this is a bit like getting indignant about the one-year-old kid screaming in the airplane. It's an airplane! And a baby! What did you expect?!
But come *on*. I can count on one hand the number of game-press folks whose work I'd grade even reasonably well in basic university course focused on analytical writing. Look at these folks' backgrounds (academic and otherwise!), experiences, stated interests, past writing, public conduct at events, and so on. Why would it even cross your mind that the enthusiast press would embody media ideals?
To my mind, this is a bit like getting indignant about the one-year-old kid screaming in the airplane. It's an airplane! And a baby! What did you expect?!
jim-jam bongs
Member
none of that precludes them from behaving ethically. look at jeff's post on the last page, full disclosure is a simple ethical principle in journalism. it's not hard to be both an enthusiast and a journalist; my father covered motoring for 40 years because he loves cars, and in that time he was frequently given free stuff and flown around the world by car makers. he also disclosed that information consistently, and never wrote something he didn't believe completely or give press to non-stories which were basically advertising in disguise.
I love it. Everyone should read this if you want a recap of the events.
This is the mentality that needs to change. Why SHOULDN'T the gaming press embody media ideals?
Brilliant. Exhaustive. Researched. Scathing. No games journalist can read this and honestly say there's "no story here." Every gamer and every journalist--hell, everyone who works in and has an interest in the gaming industry--should read this. If there were such a thing as GAF canon, this editorial would belong in it.
The longer this issue goes unanswered, the more it looks like journalists are waving their collective hand and saying "these aren't the facts you're looking for."
Love it:
RPG Codex said:
I would imagine it also depends on what your "ending point expectations" for games coverage is as well. AKA what direction do you want games coverage to go in the future.
jim-jam bongs
Member
TruthJunky is a hilariously ironic name to put above that awful post
I'm not suggesting that it precludes them from acting ethically. I don't consider video game media as journalism any more than I consider yarn magazines as knitting journalism, however disclosure of information should be a standard set when giving product criticism in any form. If anything just because such a standard would help with the constant cries of bias.
As far as giving press to non-stories, at least with gaming that can be more difficult to determine. Mario characters in the next Scribblenauts game might be considered a non-story for most, however there are certainly fans that would like to know that information. The trivial, misleading headlines or one sentence stories are crap, but people need to express to sites that they visit their concerns with them, or just stop giving those sites hits. Change can only happen in a constructive environment, both with readers who actually explain their concerns, and with writers who aren't too defensive to listen.
WrenchNinja
Member
Couldn't have said it any better.
But his post was a damning statement on the state of the press. So it's kinda a double irony.
TunaMarshmallow
Member
Well, personally, given that they're *games*, I could not give a fuck whether things change. I do not need a professional media outlet perfectly embodying media ideals to tell me whether this Nerf gun or that Nerf gun is the better, or whether I should value the color and texture of this hot new ping pong table, etc. They're games. BoardGameGeek, company websites, and amazon.com reviews do me perfectly well for my board games, and the same network of options does (and would always do) me perfectly well for video games. Give me some pictures, give me some videos of someone playing the game, give me a way to try it out or see it myself, and answer my questions by Twitter/e-mail/whatever.
I'd be happy to cut out the media altogether, honestly. I just couldn't give a fuck. I'm not a low-brow guy about all things, but I'm a low-brow guy about games. They're games.
Now, assume you disagree with all of this and that (for reasons that will be borderline unintelligible to me) you really want a professional, independent media framework within the games domain. Well, things aren't going to change by tinkering within the current framework. The current framework is *fundamentally* fucked for your purposes. You can't turn your bucket of paint into your dinner. It's just the wrong ingredients. This hot soup of bad-writing high-schoolers, game nerds, industry money, and PR dorks is not going to magically turn into an independent media system just by virtue of the application of some principles. It's just the wrong thing. If you want a real games media -- and, again, I don't know why you would -- it has to be built from scratch.
Team Filler
Member
That writeup at RPG Codex is incredible. Goddamn, it basically puts this entire thread into an easily read piece of criticism.
SolidSnakex
Member
This thread revealed one fo the reasons that this happens
http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showpost.php?p=43670253&postcount=4382
jim-jam bongs
Member
to clarify, I mean that unboxing videos and such are non-stories, but would agree that your example is innocuous. that would be fluff, which in my opinion is perfectly acceptable in enthusiast media and only a truly dangerous thing in news reporting.
as for change happening, I think that's the really troubling aspect in this whole debacle; rather than acknowledging the seriousness of this event the press close ranks to protect their own.
As someone in the comments said, it's a permanent record of something that many of us are afraid would otherwise get buried in the regular course of things. Exceptional work.
I've seen a few rumblings about this, as well. Either, much like the Florence Affair, the gaming press doesn't want to blow the whistle on one of their own, or we're all about to get a major blow-up--as well as a huge affirmation that we're not just a bunch of "crazy people."sflufan said:
Yeah, were is this coming from? What is the source?
Hopefully we hear more about that.
28 Posts Later
Member
It's an allegation made by the Rev. Stuart Campbell in his write up of events. (Right at the end of the article).
Cerebral Assassin
Member
Well considering he was perfectly happy to comment on the Eurogamer situation originally, but then after the allegations were made he suddenly stopped commenting on it,it does look rather suspicious, don't you think?
Metacritic not allowing platform specific reviews from the same reviewer is not "wrong"?
Analysts using Chartzz is stupid, because Chartzz data is wrong.
That would be straight up corruption if true.
jim-jam bongs
Member
why is it either/or? why can't we have enthusiast press which is just honest and ethical? nobody expects Pulitzer material here, we just want the fucking truth, junkie.
It's not "wrong" as in it should somehow be forced to change, they're free to do whatever they want. But it's also not accurate and shouldn't be regarded as such beyond the casual user who wants a quick look at an aggregate of different reviews. MC is some kind of bizarre series of conversions of review scores of different sites that use different systems into some kind of vague average. What's wrong is that the industry uses it as some kind of accurate measure for making multi-million dollar decisions. That's beyond ridiculous.
TunaMarshmallow
Member
.
Yeah, I agree with the latter part. As far as change goes, I think the current system is one of the better compromises between audience expectations, enthusiast press, pr and the publishers. However I do not understand why some places have closed ranks on the story. I think the worst thing Wainwright did was shut down everything and threaten libel instead of trying to give her side of the story. It gives the wrong impression. Same thing with media sites, it's a story and right now they have the perfect chance to explain the guidelines they use. Sure, until more is known about the main article (what her connections with SE were, etc) there's not much to add, but at the very least they could use it as an opportunity to communicate with their audience about what they do and what their expectations are.
THIS is what the thread has devolved into. Be upset with the OT, that's fine. But I find it equally bad that this is what the discussion has become. Again, not every game journalist is swayed by freebies given out by a PR department. When we see bad behavior, lets call it out. But stop over generalizing and lumping everyone into the same boat.
Completely agree. Now, lets stop assuming that everyone in games journalism is an unethical person. That is what this thread has become and it's equally as wrong as the OT.
What do you propose, then? That we shut up and suck it up? I don't care if it's about games or philately. The fact that they are calling themselves "journalists" means that they are admitting they are serious. And if they are serious, they should have at least a minimal sense of ethics and decency.
So because games aren't important, it's now OK for gaming "journalists" to be nothing more than PR shills? Sorry, I don't agree with you in the slightest.
The narrative of this has evolved though. It's not about which sites are corrupt or which journalists are paid off, it's about the complicit nature of the industry at large.
It's hard for me not to feel disgusted by all gaming sites right now.
jim-jam bongs
Member
well I think we'll need to agree to disagree in that case. I do tend to agree with you that things are utterly fucked, but I'm not quite ready to give up on the chance for something better. a man's reach should exceed his grasp, else what's a heaven for?
AGAIN. Broad assumptions about the entire industry.
This thread needs more thankful* acknowledgment of Kotaku's agreeing to GAF's collective request for more mainstream coverage of the issue, imo.
It takes balls to come in here without hiding behind anonymity.
It takes even bigger balls to admit a decision (to not cover the story) may have been wrong.
*thankful may be the wrong word considering many feel the story should have been covered in the first place
It takes balls to come in here without hiding behind anonymity.
It takes even bigger balls to admit a decision (to not cover the story) may have been wrong.
*thankful may be the wrong word considering many feel the story should have been covered in the first place
What's your take on Old Man Murray (if you've read it)? I think something like that is still possible. I'm not expecting every site to become as good, though.
jim-jam bongs
Member
I don't think many people genuinely thinks that nobody in games press can be trusted, but the way the majority of the gaming media have reacted to this event does far more to promote that notion than to rebut it.
To change the tenor of your statement somewhat: let's stop assuming that games journalism is inherently unethical.
What I hope we get out of all of this: if we're going to be upset/concerned over all of this, we can't keep saying these games writers aren't "journalists," or continue ironically putting journalism in quotation marks. The only thing that we as readers can hold them accountable for are their standards. The instant we give them an ethical escape route ("they're not journalists"), then they can use it with confidence ("I'm not a journalist, so I can play the part of entertainer and PR mouthpiece.")
It's become a commonplace on gaming forums and in the press itself to say that games writing isn't journalism. That's a cop-out. Yes, there are ethical (or ethically minded) games journalists out there, but we readers rarely give them credit for it. Nor are we good at holding the rest to the same standard. That's on us.
TunaMarshmallow
Member
I haven't read the entire thread carefully, but I haven't seen anyone proposing this.
Personally, given what the enthusiast press is -- on it's face, and as is readily apparent to any non-delusional person watching -- I don't see any significant moral problem with how things are carried out. I'm not morally condemning even a single person, and I'm certainly not suggesting that they're *all* unethical!
What I am saying, though, is:
(a) the system that is in place cannot be reformed into a legitimate form of critical media, and
(b) it is unrealistic and unreasonable to expect 'more' from the current system (given the types of people and entities involved), and
(c) if we wanted 'more', we'd have to pursue a fundamentally distinct system (rather than reform of the current system), and
(d) I personally don't care whether we ever get 'more'.
Was flabbergasted when nobody seemed to react to it at the time.
You're right. I'm only basing this on reactions (or lack thereof) from Eurogamer, RPS, GiantBomb, Polygon, IGN, Kotaku, Gamespot, CAG, 1UP, The Escapist and N'Gai Croal.
Just a minor cross section of the industry.
Yeah, yeah but the biggest sites are mostly silent and everyone seems eager to sweep the whole thing under the rug so excuse me that my main feeling towards the games media right now is extreme skepticism.
Silence is a form of communication too and I am not liking what I am hearing.
That was one of the main reasons why I loved to write for Anaitgames.
Reader: "You guys are being anti Sony!"
My boss: "Well, Sony is being quite anti - consumer lately, so I see no problem with that"
That was during the first PS3 days of "600 USD dollars / need 2 works to pay it / massive damage"; etc, etc.
My summation of your argument is the following:
1) It's entertainment so why does it matter if the gaming media doesn't act with integrity. I already have other sources that do act with integrity(?) because they don't have the built in conflicts of interest. Amazon reviews, etc.
2) If you let me evaluate the product myself then I don't need opinions of others.
3) Current framework is beyond repair so why complain about it(?)
If I understand you correctly, which might not be the case, I would respond with three points.
One is I would like people to act ethically despite the content in consideration. Acting unethically is just that regardless of subject matter. It compromises the person taking that action as well as it misinforms others, your readers. Not to mention Kant's Universal Ethical standard ( I am butchering the name ). Or at least that is what I understand of it w/o reading Kant directly.
Secondly, As a general statement I would prefer the existence of as much quality content as possible.
Why do you go to the sources you mention for information and reviews as opposed to the gaming media? What do those sources give you that the video game media does not? If it's all nerf guns and worthless crap then why not go to the video game sites? It doesn't matter. Correct?
Third and lastly, even if the system is beyond repair pointing out it's flaw will at least draw attention to it. And define it as a point of concern when building a new system ( not that it is likely to happen ) will improve that mythical system.
From a simple perspective of a consumer/product relationship I would agree wholeheartedly with you. I want a product, I search for opinions of that product from different sources, try to test the product or see it in action, decide to buy it or not. If you though are interested in all the culture surrounding games, if you are engaged in the communities, are interested in the creation and distribution of video games, its value in the current entertainment industry, and think that video games as a cultural medium has the potential to reach as much importance as any other medium, then that's not enough. So reform or rebuild, but this current system doesn't fit our aspirations to the medium. We outgrew the games writers. And as time goes by, more and more adult people will need and ask for mature, adult, trustworthy coverage of their favorite hobby.
Incendiary
Banned
That RPG Codex article is fantastic.
TunaMarshmallow
Member
jim-jam bongs
Member
boom
TunaMarshmallow
Member
Well, we might have different views about the cultural importance of video games. I love, love, love, love video games, as a hobby. But I see them as basically unimportant, like I see hopscotch as basically unimportant. If I am wrong, and if they are important -- a possibility that I am open to -- then I would see value in some professional form of critical coverage. (In that case, though, as I said, that system of coverage would need to be built from the ground up. The current enthusiast press in place is not what you're looking for.)
Personally, just about every hobby that I enjoy is one that has a positively ridiculous and childish enthusiast press surrounding it that is (i) completely beyond the point of possibly becoming legitimate and (ii) awkwardly struggling for legitimacy against this impossibility. It's not surprising: most people who occupy spots in the enthusiast media are not sufficiently cynical to realize their lot in life and, so, they badly want to be seen as 'more'. (It's not just the people in the media, either.) Oh well.
Why are you here posting if it doesn't matter to you and is unimportant?
- Status