Support NeoGAF

[lednerg]

Articles/videos
Wings over Sealand articles (second article has summary) 1 2
Rab Florence (the guy who started all this) criticizing games writing since 2008
John Walker's (Rock Paper Shotgun) blog (start with Games Journalists, And The Perception Of Corruption)
TotalBiscuit
Jim Sterling
Penny-Arcade
Gamasutra
Forbes
Worthplaying
GiantBomb
Old Gamasutra article on the influence of PR
Jason Lauritzen editorial and GAF post

Forum posts etc
Shawn Elliot - 1 (aegies is Arthur Gies of polygon.com) 2 3 4 5 6 on the psychology of PR etc
and some more Arthur Gies - 1 2 3 4 5 and some replies 1 2 3
Jeff Green on the way it actually works
ShockingAlberto on his view as a former games writer
Jason Schreier (Kotaku) - 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 reply
N'Gai Croal initial reaction on Twitter
Chris Schilling (freelance) likes both people involved and so doesn't want to write about it
Danny O'Dwyer (Gamespot UK) on why his site won't cover this (audience is not interested) - 1 2 3
Examples of various press kits
The 3DS comes to GiantBomb
GillianSeed79 and firehawk12 on how journalist do criticize their peers
pastapadre on being shunned by the industry
An old episode of CGW Radio discussing Gerstmann-gate
Stephen Totilo (Kotaku) doesn't think this is an important story (has possibly changed his mind about that part, read post 9). Wants to focus on good games journalism, this prompted a pretty funny picture and a comment about it, then Stephen Totilo enters the thread 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Weekend Confirmed
Syriel on his experiences of PR
Jeff Gerstmann short comment on swag
Snowden's Secret comments on gaming press reactions
Christian Donlan and Simon Parkin of Eurogamer want to change how they do things

(adding that /\ since I've got the top post)

Personally, I don't think unboxing is a huge deal. Showing people what's in a box could be seen as merely informing the viewers about the product they're thinking about buying, or it could be seen as blatant advertisement. I think the former outweighs the latter because there is a genuine interest among the audience in seeing these things; they want to see what they'd get if they bought it.

Of course, if you already perceive the gaming press as being corrupt, then you'll pick the marketing angle every time.

 

[I'm an expert]

Personally, I don't think unboxing is a huge deal. Showing people what's in a box could be seen as merely informing the viewers about the product they're thinking about buying, or it could be seen as blatant advertisement. I think the former outweighs the latter because there is a genuine interest among the audience in seeing these things; they want to see what they'd get if they bought it.

As has been stated in this thread, MS could take the approach Sony does - put it on their own official site/blog. But they took it to Kotaku..for the obvious reasons and gains on both sides..

 

[JDSN]

Why, weren't they the ones running the story in the first place? I'm somewhat disappointed that they edited the text under threat of legal action, but then I don't expect them to go bust over something like that either, especially considering the damage was already done and the internets had archived the full version. But that doesn't say anything about their trustworthiness. Sites that don't even comment on the ruckus out of fear of losing their good standing however...

Eurogamer is still my favorite site, even more so after this I might add.

They failed to have their writer's back after this whole fiasco, editorial needs to protect their writers from outside influenze and corruption, the instead caved at the unjust unsustainable demand of some Sqaure enix consultant, her site and (implied by Florence) probably the game publisher itself. What displays a bigger lack of ethics than backing down after some minimal pressure?

And damn:

And that's the phenomenal success of our Assassin's Creed brand which couldn't have happened without your incredible support and partnerships

Partners.

 

[EternalGamer]

The "thank you for" anaphora makes it extra-queasy.

The part where he calls them "partners" is the one that gets me. Also take a look at IGN or some other major sites shortly before July 4 (around the time this letter and PR kit was sent):

I count 6 AC3 "news" stories on IGN in 6 days between June 28th and July 4th:

http://www.ign.com/articles/2012/07/04/celebrate-independence-day-with-assassins-creed-iii



http://www.ign.com/articles/2012/06...tionaries-and-traitors-in-assassins-creed-iii

http://www.ign.com/articles/2012/07/04/assassins-creed-iii-taking-a-big-step-forward

http://www.ign.com/articles/2012/07/03/assassins-creed-iii-art-book-on-the-way

http://www.ign.com/articles/2012/07/02/assassins-creed-iii-limited-edition-revealed

http://www.ign.com/articles/2012/07/02/assassins-creed-iii-you-can-expect-big-secrets

Living up to their end of the partnership, I guess.

 

[lednerg]

As has been stated in this thread, MS could take the approach Sony does - put it on their own official site/blog. But they took it to Kotaku..for the obvious reasons and gains on both sides..

It IS a bit of a grey area. Personally, if I were doing those kinds of videos, I would end them all by informing the viewers on how the products sound being smashed to pieces.

 

[NervousXtian]

Here's Shawn Elliott's post on this:



PR influence is most effective when you don't realize you're being effected.

People keep posting that like it should be some kind of revelation for me.

No shit marketing and ads have some effect.

So? Then the discussion is better served by talking about how much of a real effect it has.

I don't see much of that actual discussion going on.

It's Sunday and still no coverage of this outrageous story from any of the so called big, gamer websites. A bunch of cunts I tell you.

Shame they should have a weekend when you demand a story.

No, a preview is not just supposed to be an advertisement. The fact that you think it is just emphasizes the problem.

As for trailers, yes they are marketing. Also gaming media do not produce their own trailers for games to help market the game, at least as far as I know.

As for your statement that gaming is a product, I dont even know how to make sense of that. Gaming is an activity.

Gaming is an activity of playing products. Any bit of coverage a game can get is better than an advertisement.

Some think that coverage is bought and paid for, some think writers are swayed by swag, some by drinks.. or some just cover what they want and PR guys who are better at getting good information on said games just do a better job.

I think it means that since games are products that need to be sold there isn't anything wrong with the press marketing to help them sell.

No that's not what I implied, but one can perceive that the press helps market games.

And it'd be true. I just differ on the view that I think it's a by-product of consumer demand, as opposed to some need to keep PR guys happy.

 

[EternalGamer]

People keep posting that like it should be some kind of revelation for me.

No shit marketing and ads have some effect.

So? Then the discussion is better served by talking about how much of a real effect it has.

I don't see much of that actual discussion going on.

Then you aren't reading the thread or you are just willfully ignoring our conversations about things like the Diablo 3 review, various PR kit perks, the ethical codes of various websites, Ubisoft's description of their relationship with the press in the AC3 letter, etc.

 

[Lancehead]

No that's not what I implied, but one can perceive that the press helps market games.

And it'd be true. I just differ on the view that I think it's a by-product of consumer demand, as opposed to some need to keep PR guys happy.

Which is why this whole discussion started - perception, conflict of interest, ethical implications, and all that jazz. And your response seems to be "that's just how it is" (by-product of consumer demand).

 

[chickdigger802]

If anyone was up super early saturday, Gerstmann talked about this during Octoberkast. Archive should be up in the next few days.

 

[lednerg]

People keep posting that like it should be some kind of revelation for me.

No shit marketing and ads have some effect.

So? Then the discussion is better served by talking about how much of a real effect it has.

I don't see much of that actual discussion going on.

The underlying theme in all of this is about perception. When your readership informs you that they have a lack of trust in your organization, I feel the most beneficial course of action would be to work to (re)build that trust. Knocking down the individual accusations, no matter how unjustified they are, is a defensive maneuver. If they already have the perception that there is some impropriety going on, then they'll see this defense as an invitation to attack further. Nobody wins internet arguments, after all, the other guy just becomes more and more wrong to you.

 

[Jackpot]

Then you aren't reading the thread or you are just willfully ignoring our conversations about things like the Diablo 3 review, various PR kit perks, the ethical codes of various websites, Ubisoft's description of their relationship with the press in the AC3 letter, etc.

He's just a troll. No matter how carefully you explain it or how brazen the evidence is he'll never accept it. I wouldn't waste the effort responding to him.

 

[NervousXtian]

Then you aren't reading the thread or you are just willfully ignoring our conversations about things like the Diablo 3 review, various PR kit perks, the ethical codes of various websites, Ubisoft's description of their relationship with the press in the AC3 letter, etc.

Yeah, I did read that.. where was the discussion how it actually effected the coverage in an unethical way?

The Diablo 3 review.. what because some people don't like it now? After they put 100hrs into it?

 

[NervousXtian]

The underlying theme in all of this is about perception. When your readership informs you that they have a lack of trust in your organization, I feel the most beneficial course of action would be to work to build that trust and respect. Knocking down the individual accusations, no matter how unjustified they are, is a defensive maneuver. If they already have the perception that there is some impropriety going on, then they'll see this defense as an invitation to attack further. Nobody wins internet arguments, after all, the other guy just becomes more and more wrong to you.

Is this all about PR events, gifts, and trips? Sure, go ahead and get rid of it (well except for early games).

He's just a troll. No matter how carefully you explain it or how brazen the evidence is he'll never accept it. I wouldn't waste the effort responding to him.

Except you haven't actually laid up any real scathing evidence that this is a widespread problem that's changing critical coverage.

 

[EternalGamer]

If anyone was up super early saturday, Gerstmann talked about this during Octoberkast. Archive should be up in the next few days.

What was his take?

 

[EternalGamer]

He's just a troll. No matter how carefully you explain it or how brazen the evidence is he'll never accept it. I wouldn't waste the effort responding to him.

You're right, unfortunately. There are nearly 5,000 posts in this thread, and many by people who have worked in the games media and yet he wants to claim there is no substantial discussion. If you bring up specific examples he will say they are anecdotal. If you discuss larger influences and cultural trends, he will say those are generalizations. Both kinds of evidence have been well documented in this thread.

 

[Codeblue]

Since it is kind of hard to read, here is the full text of that Ubisoft PR letter sent to journalists along with the flag and PR kit:

They could have at least been subtle. This is amazing.

 

[Corto]

By the end of reading that Ubi letter I couldn't help to mutter: "No, thank you Ubi. Thank. You!" with teary eyes. Now imagine the effect on a proper recipient of that.

 

[Gomu Gomu]

That Ubisoft letter.... Just wow.

 

[Htown]

Yeah, I did read that.. where was the discussion how it actually effected the coverage in an unethical way?

http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showpost.php?p=43700537&postcount=4954

 

[Lancehead]

Yeah, I did read that.. where was the discussion how it actually effected the coverage in an unethical way?

The Diablo 3 review.. what because some people don't like it now? After they put 100hrs into it?

The current coverage (the news-previews-reviews hype machine) is the result of press-PR relationship. The unethical implications are there because of the conflict of interests. These have been discussed for almost 50 pages now.

 

[NervousXtian]

http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showpost.php?p=43700537&postcount=4954

You know, I concede victory too you.

Nobody really gives a shit about ACIII.. so that coverage HAD to be just to please PR.

Shoved down our throats without even a drop of fine beer.

The current coverage (the news-previews-reviews hype machine) is the result of press-PR relationship. The unethical implications are there because of the conflict of interests. These have been discussed for almost 50 pages now.

Yet, hype doesn't just serve the publishers/devs now does it? Big games get big coverage because people want to read up on them.

I know the other argument is that then it's PR picking the stories and what get's hype.. but really people care about what they care about. PR guys could force a site to hype utter shit, but people aren't going to care if they don't actually want the product.

So if you want to speculate that big budgets games get a lot of coverage, I'd argue that it's not just PR influence forcing that coverage it's a mixture of all 3.. the site, pr and consumer driving that coverage.

 

[Dead Man]

You guys need to stop engaging with NervousXtian, he is not going to get it, or admit it if he does.

 

[Sullen]

Except you haven't actually laid up any real scathing evidence that this is a widespread problem that's changing critical coverage.

Reading comprehension seems like a foreign concept to you.

 

[lednerg]

Is this all about PR events, gifts, and trips? Sure, go ahead and get rid of it (well except for early games).

No, it's about transparency and respect for the readers. As with anything in the non-fiction arena, one always has to consider the source. It would be foolish not to. Should questions arise about an organization's ability to be objective, then it is in their best interest to treat the readers as being more than mean-spirited trolls who just don't get it. They need to make an effort to disclose anything that could be misconstrued as a conflict of interest whenever it arises - not after the fact. Here's an example:

"People who are from NJ tend to be incredibly smart and honest. [Note: the author of this article, lednerg, is from NJ] Blah blah blah..."

 

[Incendiary]

The real question is trust. Even if reviews are opinions, can we trust them? So far, the majority of the press is telling us, "no, we can't" and "we should just get over it and move on."

I think this is the most poignant thing I've read in this thread. I always feel hesitant about reviews because I feel like the gaming media thinks we're a bunch of knobs and just want to hear how great a game is. They don't have respect for people who play games and instead just feed us B.S. rhetoric over and over again.

On the other hand, that makes me start thinking about things like the 8/10 Uncharted 3 fiasco and I wonder if gamers as a whole actually deserve better gaming journalism, or if both sides of the coin need to evolve together to make it worthwhile.

 

[Uno Venova]

You guys need to stop engaging with NervousXtian, he is not going to get it, or admit it if he does.

This is good advice.

 

[Oersted]

People keep posting that like it should be some kind of revelation for me.

No shit marketing and ads have some effect.

So? Then the discussion is better served by talking about how much of a real effect it has.

I don't see much of that actual discussion going on.




Shame they should have a weekend when you demand a story.



Gaming is an activity of playing products. Any bit of coverage a game can get is better than an advertisement.

Some think that coverage is bought and paid for, some think writers are swayed by swag, some by drinks.. or some just cover what they want and PR guys who are better at getting good information on said games just do a better job.



No that's not what I implied, but one can perceive that the press helps market games.

And it'd be true. I just differ on the view that I think it's a by-product of consumer demand, as opposed to some need to keep PR guys happy.

You keep on fighting for your agenda, do you? We already got PR people writing articles ,about games they sell, for major gaming sites, people being fired because they wrote less-than-glowing reviews about games, which have been heavily advertised on the site, companies treating ""journalists"" like spokesperson and even journalists, sending back PR kits, because they understood them as bribery.

But you will keep on fighting, do you? Well, I won´t be the last who will put you on the ignore list.

 

[EternalGamer]

The current coverage (the news-previews-reviews hype machine) is the result of press-PR relationship. The unethical implications are there because of the conflict of interests. These have been discussed for almost 50 pages now.

Here is a place where Giant Bomb deserves some credit. They have gotten away from emphasizing the "five new screens," "new trailer," or " new preview type of coverage. Some of that stuff is still there on their site but it is extremely de-emphasizes and usually just presented as is. They instead focus on hands on coverage like their quicklooks. That is a positive step towards getting a bit outside that PR hype cycle.

 

[grimshawish]

This thread is coming to a stage where it seems outside reviews are now 100% pointless; even previews are pointless.
We've had loads of positive previews of ZombiU recently, but they were all from Ubisoft preview events. Now we should follow/trust individual journalists on their own merits, but writers/editors need to start putting up a barrier and pushing back at devs who have turned these gossip sites into shills and nothing more.

Assassins Creed 3 ain't going to change the world, so letters like that are ridiculous.
PR isn't just sitting for meetings about marketing to the customer, the size of marketing at websites is obviously increasing. Studios are competing with each other for the attention of editors/writers who are all to happy to say 'yes' and 'more'.

 

[ElRenoRaven]

Wow. That letter and flag from Ubisoft is just a great example of the problem. You'd think that was a letter written to employees that had worked hard on the game or something and not to the press.

 

[jschreier]

That letter is pretty gross!

(And if I got it, I'd probably say "wow this is gross!" and just throw the whole thing away or throw it in the office giveaway pile or something like that.)

 

[lazer_bean]

Just a point on the copy/paste.. most stories on newspaper and news stations websites are nothing but copy/paste AP/Reuters stories.

Filling a site with all in-house is pretty expensive, and sure a site like PA Report can do it, but look what it is attached too and you understand why they can do it.

yes, i agree, i guess what annoys me is that journalists still pretend that checking their facts is a requirement when they clearly dont check them. The main condition for running an article is simply that the source it's taken from has, so far, been a reliable source.

 

[Dead Man]

yes, i agree, i guess what annoys me is that journalists still pretend that checking their facts is a requirement when they clearly dont check them. The main condition for running an article is simply that the source it's taken from has, so far, been a reliable source.

Not forgetting of course that AP/Reuters are news services themselves, and that the articles are credited and sourced.

That letter is pretty gross!

(And if I got it, I'd probably say "wow this is gross!" and just throw the whole thing away or throw it in the office giveaway pile or something like that.)

Don't lie, you would make a new AC3 appreciation section of Kotaku, auction the letter for millions, and then use the money to kill baby seals.

 

[RedFalcon]

Listened to Weekend Confirmed 136 since they talk about this (starting around 63 minutes in). Blocked out some quotes and added comments. Legend: GL = Garnett Lee; JC = Jeff Cananata; AR = Andrea Rene.

GL: "I'm always avoiding using the word 'journalist.' There's some space for journalism in the video game world but it's not really what the audience really wants."

JC: "Exactly ... 95 percent of what people online are referring to games journalism is not. If you're approaching it as a reader expecting that from it, that's a mistake."

GL: "It's entertainment reporting."

I think the size of this thread, its number of views and the subsequent articles and editorials on the topic prove otherwise. People want to talk about this and have always wanted a better level and quality of reporting from those in the games press. Saying, "But, I'm not a journalist, so it's not fair to demand that of me," is a cop out.

For one, folks like Geoff Keighley still refer to themselves as game journalists. Go to his Twitter profile. It's the first line in his bio.

AR: "We get these products for free to talk about them because in order for us to you know, be competitive in the industry, we need to get the games beforehand. Reviewers want to know before the game's out and I just, like, think this whole idea, you know, that we shouldn't get stuff for free or this like payola system, like believing that exists, is such bull-cocky I tell you."

Except ethics are violated all the time, as I detailed in my editorial. The only things like personalities Andrea have to go on is trust and they severe that with the way they conduct themselves -- whether it's accepting free games, free travel, networking opportunities for business, etc.

JC: "Obviously we are in a position where we are a cog in a machine. I have very strong feelings that vacillate between two points of view because I get it. I get people wanting to be able to trust the people that they are reading or watching. I protect my opinion very strongly. I wish people cared this much about sh*t that really mattered ... I think that a lot of the hullabaloo and brouhaha comes from a place that it isn't really based in reality. I don't think anybody is truly shocked or would go to Geoff Keighley for something that would be invalidated by that photo. I think people are just pissed off at a guy who's very successful is successful in this way."

Nice. Jeff admits they're cogs in a machine, meaning they're very malleable when it comes to what they'll do, but then says, "You're just jealous of folks like Geoff Keighley." Nope. Has nothing to do with that.

AR: "The idea that we shouldn't have personal relationship with people in PR is silly."

It's silly that you think it's silly. You shouldn't have a personal relationship. You should have a professional one -- big difference.

GL: "But do you have personal relationships where you get free PS3s?"

AR: "No, but that'd be awesome. I have personal relationships with people at specific PR companies but I'm not putting a score on that game. Somebody else at the company is doing that"

Again, she doesn't see this is a problem, but it inherently is.

GL: "I don't like to talk about this subject because it's self evident. You could look at anyone's work - anyone." Starts talking about trip to Boston to cover Assassin's Creed 3 where dinner, travel, etc. is paid for. Say's he didn't go. "It's still a lot of work. You have to get your pieces done. You have to get in on deadline. You quickly atune yourself to PR speak, when they're messaging you ... I'll be honest: You pretty quickly tune that sh*t out."

Cognitive dissonance. You can say, "It doesn't affect me all you want." According to proven psychology, it does. Plus, the perception of it does not look good to your readers.

JC: "I understand the idea of it is offensive and the idea of it is problematic but in actuality and practicality, I don't understand, like, what do people want?"

People are tired with the way the video game press has been operating for so many years. They want it to operate under standard journalistic principles. They want you to be transparent, even if all you think you are is a personality and nothing more.

 

[NervousXtian]

You guys need to stop engaging with NervousXtian, he is not going to get it, or admit it if he does.

Well, to be honest your arguments of why I should join the crusade haven't been very persuasive.

Reading comprehension seems like a foreign concept to you.

Well, if your proof is that IGN posted up stories on a pretty big game that is coming out, then well.. call me whatever you feel like.

 

[EternalGamer]

That letter is pretty gross!

(And if I got it, I'd probably say "wow this is gross!" and just throw the whole thing away or throw it in the office giveaway pile or something like that.)

So what is gross about it in your opinion? Is the Ubisoft VP of marketing just wrong and naive about what he thinks the game media's role is? Did he not owe thanks to the gaming media for AC3's unprecidented pre-orders? Or is he just gross for stating things so bluntly?

 

[XANDER CAGE]

The dumb thing is (like the press kits) I'd pay good money for an Asscreed flag. I've only ever received a few things you could really call "press kits", mercifully, and every time I've seen the copy arrive in a box bigger than an envelope I've felt kinda "ehhhhhhh". Like, sure, hooray, free swag, but there's only really one reason companies would send extra freebies. I've definitely liked some of the free stuff I've been sent, which is part of the problem.

For sure, though - I think I'm going to just straight up ask for "just the game" like Dragnet every time review copies are on the way, just in case. This is actually one benefit of covering a lot of PC titles: there's no way for them to send anything BUT a download code, usually on release day. Luckily the site I write for already has a "we bought this game/received from publisher" section at the bottom of all articles. We also don't have a news section anymore precisely because most of the "news" we get sent is press release stuff that belongs on an official site. It's much easier to just respond to PR people asking us to post a barely-news article "sorry, we don't run news".

Like I mentioned earlier, we're a dinky volunteer site focused mostly on criticism, but that's what events like this should do - make everyone think if there's anything they can do to better their own work.

 

[Lancehead]

Yet, hype doesn't just serve the publishers/devs now does it? Big games get big coverage because people want to read up on them.

I know the other argument is that then it's PR picking the stories and what get's hype.. but really people care about what they care about. PR guys could force a site to hype utter shit, but people aren't going to care if they don't actually want the product.

So if you want to speculate that big budgets games get a lot of coverage, I'd argue that it's not just PR influence forcing that coverage it's a mixture of all 3.. the site, pr and consumer driving that coverage.

Yes, I said as much earlier in the thread. But the distinction needs to be made between content and its form, specifically because the issues are perception, conflict of interest etc. And the form is shaped by the press-PR relationships, and ad revenue as well to an extent, I'd imagine. As for the content, I don't really like it, but many do. That doesn't mean I stop questioning it or accept it.

 

[Grecco]

Those comments by Garnett and the rest on his podcast are incredibly disapointing.

 

[EternalGamer]

The dumb thing is (like the press kits) I'd pay good money for an Asscreed flag. I've only ever received a few things you could really call "press kits", mercifully, and every time I've seen the copy arrive in a box bigger than an envelope I've felt kinda "ehhhhhhh". Like, sure, hooray, free swag, but there's only really one reason companies would send extra freebies. I've definitely liked some of the free stuff I've been sent, which is part of the problem.

For sure, though - I think I'm going to just straight up ask for "just the game" like Dragnet every time review copies are on the way, just in case. This is actually one benefit of covering a lot of PC titles: there's no way for them to send anything BUT a download code, usually on release day. Luckily the site I write for already has a "we bought this game/received from publisher" section at the bottom of all articles. We also don't have a news section anymore precisely because most of the "news" we get sent is press release stuff that belongs on an official site. It's much easier to just respond to PR people asking us to post a barely-news article "sorry, we don't run news".

Like I mentioned earlier, we're a dinky volunteer site focused mostly on criticism, but that's what events like this should do - make everyone think if there's anything they can do to better their own work.

What is your site?

 

[SolidSnakex]

Listened to Weekend Confirmed 136 since they talk about this (starting around 63 minutes in). Blocked out some quotes and added comments. Legend: GL = Garnett Lee; JC = Jeff Cananata; AR = Andrea Rene.

Same Jeff?

On the newest Weekend Confirmed they talk about the situation around the PS3 version. And i must say i'm not in the slightest suprised that this story is not getting any hype in the press. Garnett doesn't care about the technical side and for Jeff it's not that big of a deal because his experience on Xbox was fine and he was not effected. These guys don't feel any responsibility at all to inform their readers/listeners.

http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showpost.php?p=33536812&postcount=1436

 

[jschreier]

So what is gross about it in your opinion? Is the Ubisoft VP of marketing just wrong and naive about what he thinks the game media's role is? Did he not owe thanks to the gaming media for AC3's unprecidented pre-orders? Or is he just gross for stating things so bluntly?

Well I don't know if that letter went out to just press or also retailers, business partners, analysts, etc. But the idea that a company would *thank* press for sales on a game or call their relationships "partnerships" is really gross, yeah. That would skeeve me out.

I spend a lot of time thinking about the way I cover games and doing my best to avoid the appearance of impropriety, which also includes the appearance that I'm part of a game company's marketing arm. So yeah, this sort of thing would make me do a double take.

And RE: that whole "journalist" thing, I proudly consider myself a journalist and I proudly consider the majority of what I do every day to be journalism. I don't think taking ten minutes to do an unboxing video detracts from that, although the topic of unboxing videos is certainly worth discussing and worth thinking about. But I also don't think journalism is always at odds with what PR wants. Journalism that reflects positively on a game or a studio is still journalism.

 

[NervousXtian]

Yes, I said as much earlier in the thread. But the distinction needs to be made between content and its form, specifically because the issues are perception, conflict of interest etc. And the form is shaped by the press-PR relationships, and ad revenue as well to an extent, I'd imagine. As for the content, I don't really like it, but many do. That doesn't mean I stop questioning it or accept it.

To be honest, you've been very level headed in this debate. Haven't resorted to insults and out right being dismissive of any point I try to make. I appreciate that.

RedFalcon just posted this from Weekend Confirmed, and honestly I agree with their statements:

GL: "I'm always avoiding using the word 'journalist.' There's some space for journalism in the video game world but it's not really what the audience really wants."

JC: "Exactly ... 95 percent of what people online are referring to games journalism is not. If you're approaching it as a reader expecting that from it, that's a mistake."

GL: "It's entertainment reporting."

...and everyone wants to bash on me.. but I agree with them.

 

[Dead Man]

Listened to Weekend Confirmed 136 since they talk about this (starting around 63 minutes in). Blocked out some quotes and added comments. Legend: GL = Garnett Lee; JC = Jeff Cananata; AR = Andrea Rene.



I think the size of this thread, its number of views and the subsequent articles and editorials on the topic prove otherwise. People want to talk about this and have always wanted a better level and quality of reporting from those in the games press. Saying, "But, I'm not a journalist, so it's not fair to demand that of me," is a cop out.

For one, folks like Geoff Keighley still refer to themselves as game journalists. Go to his Twitter profile. It's the first line in his bio.



Except ethics are violated all the time, as I detailed in my editorial. The only things like personalities Andrea have to go on is trust and they severe that with the way they conduct themselves -- whether it's accepting free games, free travel, networking opportunities for business, etc.



Nice. Jeff admits they're cogs in a machine, meaning they're very malleable when it comes to what they'll do, but then says, "You're just jealous of folks like Geoff Keighley." Nope. Has nothing to do with that.



It's silly that you think it's silly. You shouldn't have a personal relationship. You should have a professional one -- big difference.



Again, she doesn't see this is a problem, but it inherently is.



Cognitive dissonance. You can say, "It doesn't affect me all you want." According to proven psychology, it does. Plus, the perception of it does not look good to your readers.



People are tired with the way the video game press has been operating for so many years. They want it to operate under standard journalistic principles. They want you to be transparent, even if all you think you are is a personality and nothing more.

Thanks for this post. Pretty much captured my feelings on all the quotes you posted.

GL: "I'm always avoiding using the word 'journalist.' There's some space for journalism in the video game world but it's not really what the audience really wants."

This is one of the stupidest things a person a person has ever said. Bloody hell.

 

[RedFalcon]

Same Jeff?



http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showpost.php?p=33536812&postcount=1436

Would assume it's the same Jeff. Only listened to the portion of the podcast where they talked about the Eurogamer editorial and the conversation it generated.

 

[EternalGamer]

Nice. Jeff admits they're cogs in a machine, meaning they're very malleable when it comes to what they'll do, but then says, "You're just jealous of folks like Geoff Keighley." Nope. Has nothing to do with that.
.

That particular statement from Jeff was one of the most dissapointing things I ever heard him say. It was especially ironic given that he was complaining about junk food and the influence of the corn industry at the top of the show and started this segment by saying it is easy to get defensive about this topic.

Those two things made it all the more dissapointing that he reduced criticism of Keighley to jealousy. It was utterly bizzarre.

 

[WrenchNinja]

Listened to Weekend Confirmed 136 since they talk about this (starting around 63 minutes in). Blocked out some quotes and added comments. Legend: GL = Garnett Lee; JC = Jeff Cananata; AR = Andrea Rene.



I think the size of this thread, its number of views and the subsequent articles and editorials on the topic prove otherwise. People want to talk about this and have always wanted a better level and quality of reporting from those in the games press. Saying, "But, I'm not a journalist, so it's not fair to demand that of me," is a cop out.

For one, folks like Geoff Keighley still refer to themselves as game journalists. Go to his Twitter profile. It's the first line in his bio.



Except ethics are violated all the time, as I detailed in my editorial. The only things like personalities Andrea have to go on is trust and they severe that with the way they conduct themselves -- whether it's accepting free games, free travel, networking opportunities for business, etc.



Nice. Jeff admits they're cogs in a machine, meaning they're very malleable when it comes to what they'll do, but then says, "You're just jealous of folks like Geoff Keighley." Nope. Has nothing to do with that.



It's silly that you think it's silly. You shouldn't have a personal relationship. You should have a professional one -- big difference.



Again, she doesn't see this is a problem, but it inherently is.



Cognitive dissonance. You can say, "It doesn't affect me all you want." According to proven psychology, it does. Plus, the perception of it does not look good to your readers.



People are tired with the way the video game press has been operating for so many years. They want it to operate under standard journalistic principles. They want you to be transparent, even if all you think you are is a personality and nothing more.

I hope you posted this in the Weekend Confirmed thread too.

 

[Grecco]

That particular statement from Jeff was one of the most dissapointing things I ever heard him say. It was especially ironic given that he was complaining about junk food and the influence of the corn industry at the top of the show and started this segment by saying it is easy to get defensive about this topic.

Those two things made it all the more dissapointing that he reduced criticism of Keighley to jealousy. It was utterly bizzarre.

Reminds me on how games press called gamers "entitled" whenever there was a big outcry like during ME3.

 

[noobasuar]

Man anyone remember the good old days of 1up yours and how much shit Luke Smith would give Shane Bettenhausen for his love of all things sony? Those were some damn fun times.

 

[RedFalcon]

I hope you posted this in the Weekend Confirmed thread too.

I didn't. Getting read to head out to the gym. If someone wants to quote it and cross post it there, I'm OK with that.