Twitty Twitty Ten Dollar

 Pages 1 2 NEXT
 

Twitty Twitty Ten Dollar

This Message is Brought to You by Mountain Dew and a Shocking Lack of Journalistic Standards

Read Full Article

I find it kind of sad that this comic is the only commentary on the situation I've seen from the site so far. It's an important discussion to have, and I think the site is missing a good opportunity.

In any case, good strip :3

I've been payed to say this was the best strip so far

It occurs to me that the people who started letting the lawyers off the leash over this incident probably did themselves more harm than good. It just called attention to the whole thing.

Now if it was an Ouya kit I'd understand :P
But now your soul is Dewmed!

Fappy:
I find it kind of sad that this comic is the only commentary on the situation I've seen from the site so far. It's an important discussion to have, and I think the site is missing a good opportunity.

In any case, good strip :3

There's no money in having a clean conscience

Captch: Get the Hopper FREE.

Fappy:
I find it kind of sad that this comic is the only commentary on the situation I've seen from the site so far.

The rest were all paid not to. >.>

Fappy:
I find it kind of sad that this comic is the only commentary on the situation I've seen from the site so far. It's an important discussion to have, and I think the site is missing a good opportunity.

In any case, good strip :3

To be fair, a lot of gaming "journalism" sites have been trying to ignore the whole thing as much as possible (and yes, in this case, the industry has earned those quotes around journalism.) Kotaku decided to completely ignore it, and when they were called out over that they said "it wasn't important enough" and instead posted an unboxing of Halo 4.

And, the entire "let's be quiet, and hope this shit goes away" element has made me really cynical of all the positive reviews that went up for Halo 4 on Wednesday night, Escapist included.

Now, as a reviewer you can say you're not being bought off. But you're reviewing content that was provided to you gratis at least an entire week before official release. If you weren't a member of the "gaming media" your 360 would have been bricked if you did that.

And none of this addresses the fact that publishers are quite willing to actually blacklist anyone that annoys them. Jim Sterling's been fairly open about his blacklisting by Konami, and I don't think anyone's going to forget the Kane and Lynch Gamestop shitstorm.

It saddens me that The Escapist wants to let this one slip by without editorial commenting on it, it really does.

Starke:

Fappy:
I find it kind of sad that this comic is the only commentary on the situation I've seen from the site so far. It's an important discussion to have, and I think the site is missing a good opportunity.

In any case, good strip :3

To be fair, a lot of gaming "journalism" sites have been trying to ignore the whole thing as much as possible (and yes, in this case, the industry has earned those quotes around journalism.) Kotaku decided to completely ignore it, and when they were called out over that they said "it wasn't important enough" and instead posted an unboxing of Halo 4.

And, the entire "let's be quiet, and hope this shit goes away" element has made me really cynical of all the positive reviews that went up for Halo 4 on Wednesday night, Escapist included.

Now, as a reviewer you can say you're not being bought off. But you're reviewing content that was provided to you gratis at least an entire week before official release. If you weren't a member of the "gaming media" your 360 would have been bricked if you did that.

And none of this addresses the fact that publishers are quite willing to actually blacklist anyone that annoys them. Jim Sterling's been fairly open about his blacklisting by Konami, and I don't think anyone's going to forget the Kane and Lynch Gamestop shitstorm.

It saddens me that The Escapist wants to let this one slip by without editorial commenting on it, it really does.

In all fairness, the first guy that tried was threatened with a serious lawsuit (serious in the country it would have taken place in, anyway)

It's truly sad when we're not even pretending to be impartial anymore. Blacklisting is shady & wrong, yes, but at least it's relatively covert. Now we're publicly threatening/suing anyone that publishes negative press, especially if it's true. Gotta love the game journo biz

Zombie_Moogle:

In all fairness, the first guy that tried was threatened with a serious lawsuit (serious in the country it would have taken place in, anyway)

Yeah, defamation suits in the UK are absolutely horrifying, and it was extremely unlikely she would have actually won it, but a victory basically would have killed the publication, so they buckled under.

Zombie_Moogle:
It's truly sad when we're not even pretending to be impartial anymore.

Sins of omission and all that. :(

"You Will Do As Soon as this check cashes in"?

Not to be a grammer Nazi, but that really hurts my brain. You might wanna fix that or something?

Otherwise, good strip.

Starke:

Fappy:
I find it kind of sad that this comic is the only commentary on the situation I've seen from the site so far. It's an important discussion to have, and I think the site is missing a good opportunity.

In any case, good strip :3

To be fair, a lot of gaming "journalism" sites have been trying to ignore the whole thing as much as possible (and yes, in this case, the industry has earned those quotes around journalism.) Kotaku decided to completely ignore it, and when they were called out over that they said "it wasn't important enough" and instead posted an unboxing of Halo 4.

And, the entire "let's be quiet, and hope this shit goes away" element has made me really cynical of all the positive reviews that went up for Halo 4 on Wednesday night, Escapist included.

Now, as a reviewer you can say you're not being bought off. But you're reviewing content that was provided to you gratis at least an entire week before official release. If you weren't a member of the "gaming media" your 360 would have been bricked if you did that.

And none of this addresses the fact that publishers are quite willing to actually blacklist anyone that annoys them. Jim Sterling's been fairly open about his blacklisting by Konami, and I don't think anyone's going to forget the Kane and Lynch Gamestop shitstorm.

It saddens me that The Escapist wants to let this one slip by without editorial commenting on it, it really does.

The fact that you assume the lack of comment is in the hopes of things going away renders any discussion pointless. I don't feel obligated to offer an opinion simply to "prove" my innocence. You look at the tools I need to do my job as a bribe - why should I bother saying anything at all? You've clearly already made your decision, and I can't prove a negative.

Either someone looks at the body of my work and believes I am who I say I am, or they don't. And very little I say about "Doritogate" will change that.

Here's a perfect example - our high praise of Dragon Age 2 and Mass Effect 3 "proved" that we'd been bought by EA. Our low score for Medal of Honor, then, should surely "prove" that to be untrue, right? Oh, no. It's just that EA doesn't care enough about that game to pay us off. It's not one of their "big" titles.

These are actual comments that come from these very forums.

So you perhaps see why I don't jump into the fray to get into a fight that isn't mine to begin with. Do I think a game journalist should be tweeting about a certain game in order to win a PS3? Of course not, that's clearly unprofessional - as was calling out that journalist by name in an article that wasn't about her, per se, but rather about the blurring line between PR and reporting. And until the audience starts from a default of giving us the benefit of the doubt, nothing anyone says about it matters. We are assumed to be liars, cheats, and thieves, no matter what we've done or said.

Selling out has never been so... um... I can't even think of a good word for it. Well it's reached a all new low anyway.

Edit: On a somewhat related note, I'm loving these advertisement captchas.
"Describe this brand using any number of words."
Ok.
"shit shit shit shit shit shit shit shit"
Edit2: And it works too.

If anything, I think this makes the first strip more accurate -- it said her opinions were handed to her in envelopes, not money. It talked about intimidation over ad revenue (which is a real thing) and it showed her being ecstatic to find donuts. Bets on those donuts being provided by a publisher? :P

Mr.Mattress:
"You Will Do As Soon as this check cashes in"?

Not to be a grammer Nazi, but that really hurts my brain. You might wanna fix that or something?

Otherwise, good strip.

It's fictional in-character dialogue, so such petty grammar issues don't apply. >_>

Yes, you do see a lot of twitterers (or whatever the hell you call them) selling out to cheap marketing schemes, but fortunately for me, I follow so few journalists that I have not actually seen it among the ones I care about.

In response to the above post, it is a small irony, that one cannot give a good, honest review to such a high-profile game without having accusations of sell-out thrown at them from left, right and center anymore (especially if people in the PRESS are given content ahead of release).

Guess it all comes down to whether we trust the journalists we follow.

EDIT: Oh yeah, on topic. Funny comic, as usual. Although I feel like the face of "Blonde girl I forgot the name of", seems a bit off in the last panel, compared to her previous depictions. Might just be me.

Fappy:
I find it kind of sad that this comic is the only commentary on the situation I've seen from the site so far. It's an important discussion to have, and I think the site is missing a good opportunity.

In any case, good strip :3

I'm sure you'll see more editorials on the subject once our guys actually have something to add. A lot of the editorials that are cropping up thus far aren't really adding anything to the discussion; they're largely just diatribes from journalists looking to prove they're not like Wainwright or her ilk.

We had a pretty long talk about this in the Escapist staff room, and Susan made a rather good point; Telling people we're not corrupt is a waste of time, proving that we're not corrupt with our conduct isn't. Basically, we should lead by example.

I'm not entirely sure I agree - mainly because I like playing the part of the defender of industry standards, and I adore making people, especially other journalists, miserable, but it's a valid point nonetheless.

Susan Arendt:
The fact that you assume the lack of comment is in the hopes of things going away renders any discussion pointless. I don't feel obligated to offer an opinion simply to "prove" my innocence. You look at the tools I need to do my job as a bribe - why should I bother saying anything at all? You've clearly already made your decision, and I can't prove a negative.

Either someone looks at the body of my work and believes I am who I say I am, or they don't. And very little I say about "Doritogate" will change that.

No, no, there's always the possibility of surprising someone, just like there's always the possibility of disappointing.

And believe it or not, I wasn't asking for your opinion. If you want to voice that, it's fine by me, and I'd be happy to hear whatever you think on the subject, whether I agree with it or not. Let me state that again: I'd be happy for any discussion on the subject, even if it's just reporting the basic facts, that this happened. The issue is, as Jim Sterling put it, the "uncoverage".

EDIT: I'm going to say something else, Susan, I know we've gotten off on a bad foot before. But, if you'd said what Grey just attributed to you, the leading by example bit, and had said, "hey, we're still working on it, this isn't easy," (which, so far as it goes is basically what RPS has said on the subject so far), then it would have seemed a lot less standoffish.

For the record, I really do not think you're on the take. I do think the gaming media, as a whole, is in a very awkward and vulnerable state, and that the publishers are entirely willing to leverage that against you (that's the industry as a whole, not you personally.) And unfortunately, that dynamic is at the core of the current mess.

Susan Arendt:

Starke:

Fappy:
I find it kind of sad that this comic is the only commentary on the situation I've seen from the site so far. It's an important discussion to have, and I think the site is missing a good opportunity.

In any case, good strip :3

To be fair, a lot of gaming "journalism" sites have been trying to ignore the whole thing as much as possible (and yes, in this case, the industry has earned those quotes around journalism.) Kotaku decided to completely ignore it, and when they were called out over that they said "it wasn't important enough" and instead posted an unboxing of Halo 4.

And, the entire "let's be quiet, and hope this shit goes away" element has made me really cynical of all the positive reviews that went up for Halo 4 on Wednesday night, Escapist included.

Now, as a reviewer you can say you're not being bought off. But you're reviewing content that was provided to you gratis at least an entire week before official release. If you weren't a member of the "gaming media" your 360 would have been bricked if you did that.

And none of this addresses the fact that publishers are quite willing to actually blacklist anyone that annoys them. Jim Sterling's been fairly open about his blacklisting by Konami, and I don't think anyone's going to forget the Kane and Lynch Gamestop shitstorm.

It saddens me that The Escapist wants to let this one slip by without editorial commenting on it, it really does.

The fact that you assume the lack of comment is in the hopes of things going away renders any discussion pointless. I don't feel obligated to offer an opinion simply to "prove" my innocence. You look at the tools I need to do my job as a bribe - why should I bother saying anything at all? You've clearly already made your decision, and I can't prove a negative.

Either someone looks at the body of my work and believes I am who I say I am, or they don't. And very little I say about "Doritogate" will change that.

Here's a perfect example - our high praise of Dragon Age 2 and Mass Effect 3 "proved" that we'd been bought by EA. Our low score for Medal of Honor, then, should surely "prove" that to be untrue, right? Oh, no. It's just that EA doesn't care enough about that game to pay us off. It's not one of their "big" titles.

These are actual comments that come from these very forums.

So you perhaps see why I don't jump into the fray to get into a fight that isn't mine to begin with. Do I think a game journalist should be tweeting about a certain game in order to win a PS3? Of course not, that's clearly unprofessional - as was calling out that journalist by name in an article that wasn't about her, per se, but rather about the blurring line between PR and reporting. And until the audience starts from a default of giving us the benefit of the doubt, nothing anyone says about it matters. We are assumed to be liars, cheats, and thieves, no matter what we've done or said.

I figured that was the reason for the silence on the matter. I can't imagine it's a comfortable situation to be in, but from what I can tell this issue is pretty important for this community in particular (from comments I have read) and I think you guys are doing yourselves a disservice by staying silent. Yeah, you might rustle a few jimmies, but being seasoned professionals we as a community would be hard-pressed not to value your insight. I respect you're right to distance yourself from the situation, but if you have strong opinions on the matter (which I am sure many game journalists do) I'd say voice them!

This site is the mouthpiece of the gaming generation, isn't it?

If it helps I could send you a picture of an adorable animal for every piece of hate mail you get regarding this issue :P

Fappy:
If it helps I could send you a picture of an adorable animal for every piece of hate mail you get regarding this issue :P

I suppose the only thing that rivals the amount of hate on the internet, is the ocean of cat pics; so that's a fair counter-balance.

Grey Carter:

I'm not entirely sure I agree - mainly because I like playing the part of the defender of industry standards, and I adore making people, especially other journalists, miserable, but it's a valid point nonetheless.

You definitely are one of the more hard-hitting game journalists out there. That is in no way a bad quality from where I stand. When people get too comfortable with the news is usually when you know there's a problem.

It's a taint that seeps in everywhere unfortunately. Personally I don't use the Escapist for reviews, not because I do not trust them but because I've never read/seen more than a couple that are on the same wavelength as me. But also I inherently distrust any site that has adverts for whatever they are reviewing. It's a conflict of interests.

It only takes a couple of these sorts of incidents to really undermine any benefit of the doubt people might reserve for such things. Everyone has their price.

I don't really know what big big story this is about but at the same time I'm sort of glad. Gaming journalism should be reporting on games and the industry, not trying to pile on other gaming journalists and reporting endlessly on "scandals" with other publications.

Mr.Mattress:
"You Will Do As Soon as this check cashes in"?

Not to be a grammer Nazi, but that really hurts my brain. You might wanna fix that or something?

Otherwise, good strip.

I agree, that bit hit my brain wrong.

I dont know anyone who speaks like that, it sounds even worse said out loud.

Susan Arendt:
So you perhaps see why I don't jump into the fray to get into a fight that isn't mine to begin with. Do I think a game journalist should be tweeting about a certain game in order to win a PS3? Of course not, that's clearly unprofessional - as was calling out that journalist by name in an article that wasn't about her, per se, but rather about the blurring line between PR and reporting. And until the audience starts from a default of giving us the benefit of the doubt, nothing anyone says about it matters. We are assumed to be liars, cheats, and thieves, no matter what we've done or said.

I have no idea what is even going on but I'm not even sure (from what I can understand) that it's vaguely important enough to care about?
So journalists are entering competitions by using work related social media outlets, advertising that brand in a public forum?

If this is sanctioned by the companies whom employ the journalists, well so what? It doesn't seem shady at all, just work based incentives for people who would probably have to at least not speak negatively about a product their employers were advertising.

The gaming community rallies against some dumb shit sometimes. That said I hope I have the gist of the situation.

Fappy:
I find it kind of sad that this comic is the only commentary on the situation I've seen from the site so far. It's an important discussion to have, and I think the site is missing a good opportunity.

In any case, good strip :3

Because "We're totally innocent in this" always makes people look more guilty than they actually are even when they are totally innocent and not at all involved.

TV shows that start with "the following tales are all actual true stories" or adverts that state "true testimonials from customers" always make my eyes narrow and my bullshit detecter go off.

(I now realise how apt my forum title is)

As soon as they find someone who has something to say other than "we were in no way involved" or generic poop flinging they'll probably post an article on it.

OT: I like how this comic covers this. The journalist (Erin) doesn't really like what the others are doing but is forced to join in by her boss. The comic assumes a kind of neutrality on the part of the journalist and blames their company, it's quite a fair way of putting it. Loving the "What" face in panel 2.

Grey Carter:
I'm sure you'll see more editorials on the subject once our guys actually have something to add. A lot of the editorials that are cropping up thus far aren't really adding anything to the discussion; they're largely just diatribes from journalists looking to prove they're not like Wainwright or her ilk.

Honestly the lack of basic coverage has lead to the perception that this has been out in the wild longer than it's actually been. Which is really weird. It wasn't until I was responding to Susan that I realized the major break for this news on actual sites has only been in the last few days. Jim's Destructoid editorial was on the 29th, and the Techdirt article was yesterday.

When you combine that with being out sick for the entire week, and I'm left with this really warped perception that this broke as it happened. Which, to be fair, it kinda did in places.

What really does disturb me a bit, and still does, is that this really hasn't been getting even a basic news writeup, even before the editorials. I can understand not wanting to weigh in with the editorials yet, but we've got one gaming reporter threatening another with defamation because she didn't like being called out for supporting a publisher backed sweepstakes to gaming journalists.

And, of course, as you've pointed out it is a damned if you do, damned if you don't situation. If you do a writeup, then you're "trying to prove you're not like Wainwright", and if you don't, you're "obviously in collusion". Unless of course I actually managed to miss an article reporting on Wainright's defamation suit threat, in which case I need to cram my foot someplace down my throat...

EDIT: Brain not work so gud... >.< She threatened defamation, she didn't actually file suit.

Fappy:

This site is the mouthpiece of the gaming generation, isn't it?

That's what the slogan is! (After that "slogan" thread in Off-Topic, I was trying to remember what is was =P)

Anyway, while I have some sympathy for gaming journalists, I can't help but be suspicious for at least a while after a story like this pops up.

The Totilo/Kotaku "This story isn't important" did give me a good chuckle as well. Although it doesn't exactly help people's suspicions.

And to finish on the "tangentially related" note I started on, people should watch Burnistoun (it's a series the writer of the Eurogamer article, Rob Florence, writes for)

Susan Arendt:

Starke:

Fappy:
I find it kind of sad that this comic is the only commentary on the situation I've seen from the site so far. It's an important discussion to have, and I think the site is missing a good opportunity.

In any case, good strip :3

To be fair, a lot of gaming "journalism" sites have been trying to ignore the whole thing as much as possible (and yes, in this case, the industry has earned those quotes around journalism.) Kotaku decided to completely ignore it, and when they were called out over that they said "it wasn't important enough" and instead posted an unboxing of Halo 4.

And, the entire "let's be quiet, and hope this shit goes away" element has made me really cynical of all the positive reviews that went up for Halo 4 on Wednesday night, Escapist included.

Now, as a reviewer you can say you're not being bought off. But you're reviewing content that was provided to you gratis at least an entire week before official release. If you weren't a member of the "gaming media" your 360 would have been bricked if you did that.

And none of this addresses the fact that publishers are quite willing to actually blacklist anyone that annoys them. Jim Sterling's been fairly open about his blacklisting by Konami, and I don't think anyone's going to forget the Kane and Lynch Gamestop shitstorm.

It saddens me that The Escapist wants to let this one slip by without editorial commenting on it, it really does.

The fact that you assume the lack of comment is in the hopes of things going away renders any discussion pointless. I don't feel obligated to offer an opinion simply to "prove" my innocence. You look at the tools I need to do my job as a bribe - why should I bother saying anything at all? You've clearly already made your decision, and I can't prove a negative.

Either someone looks at the body of my work and believes I am who I say I am, or they don't. And very little I say about "Doritogate" will change that.

Here's a perfect example - our high praise of Dragon Age 2 and Mass Effect 3 "proved" that we'd been bought by EA. Our low score for Medal of Honor, then, should surely "prove" that to be untrue, right? Oh, no. It's just that EA doesn't care enough about that game to pay us off. It's not one of their "big" titles.

These are actual comments that come from these very forums.

So you perhaps see why I don't jump into the fray to get into a fight that isn't mine to begin with. Do I think a game journalist should be tweeting about a certain game in order to win a PS3? Of course not, that's clearly unprofessional - as was calling out that journalist by name in an article that wasn't about her, per se, but rather about the blurring line between PR and reporting. And until the audience starts from a default of giving us the benefit of the doubt, nothing anyone says about it matters. We are assumed to be liars, cheats, and thieves, no matter what we've done or said.

So no matter what you've done or said, the end result is completely beyond your control?
Now YOU know how that feels.

And just so we're clear, I DON'T think you were bought out by EA.

Lyri:

Susan Arendt:
So you perhaps see why I don't jump into the fray to get into a fight that isn't mine to begin with. Do I think a game journalist should be tweeting about a certain game in order to win a PS3? Of course not, that's clearly unprofessional - as was calling out that journalist by name in an article that wasn't about her, per se, but rather about the blurring line between PR and reporting. And until the audience starts from a default of giving us the benefit of the doubt, nothing anyone says about it matters. We are assumed to be liars, cheats, and thieves, no matter what we've done or said.

I have no idea what is even going on but I'm not even sure (from what I can understand) that it's vaguely important enough to care about?
So journalists are entering competitions by using work related social media outlets, advertising that brand in a public forum?

If this is sanctioned by the companies whom employ the journalists, well so what? It doesn't seem shady at all, just work based incentives for people who would probably have to at least not speak negatively about a product their employers were advertising.

The gaming community rallies against some dumb shit sometimes. That said I hope I have the gist of the situation.

The problem is, the brands in question were video games. Basically, the company in question offered several game journalists a chance to win a free PS3 if they [positively] tweeted about a game that's coming out (I forget the specific game). So not just were the journalists allowing themselves to be bribed, but they were doing it for a PS3.

To top that off, when a writer for EuroGamer wrote an article elated to it, he called out a few of them by name. One of the journalists that was called out threatened to press libel charges against the writer, so now he can no longer write for EuroGamer.

DVS BSTrD:

Susan Arendt:

Starke:
To be fair, a lot of gaming "journalism" sites have been trying to ignore the whole thing as much as possible (and yes, in this case, the industry has earned those quotes around journalism.) Kotaku decided to completely ignore it, and when they were called out over that they said "it wasn't important enough" and instead posted an unboxing of Halo 4.

And, the entire "let's be quiet, and hope this shit goes away" element has made me really cynical of all the positive reviews that went up for Halo 4 on Wednesday night, Escapist included.

Now, as a reviewer you can say you're not being bought off. But you're reviewing content that was provided to you gratis at least an entire week before official release. If you weren't a member of the "gaming media" your 360 would have been bricked if you did that.

And none of this addresses the fact that publishers are quite willing to actually blacklist anyone that annoys them. Jim Sterling's been fairly open about his blacklisting by Konami, and I don't think anyone's going to forget the Kane and Lynch Gamestop shitstorm.

It saddens me that The Escapist wants to let this one slip by without editorial commenting on it, it really does.

The fact that you assume the lack of comment is in the hopes of things going away renders any discussion pointless. I don't feel obligated to offer an opinion simply to "prove" my innocence. You look at the tools I need to do my job as a bribe - why should I bother saying anything at all? You've clearly already made your decision, and I can't prove a negative.

Either someone looks at the body of my work and believes I am who I say I am, or they don't. And very little I say about "Doritogate" will change that.

Here's a perfect example - our high praise of Dragon Age 2 and Mass Effect 3 "proved" that we'd been bought by EA. Our low score for Medal of Honor, then, should surely "prove" that to be untrue, right? Oh, no. It's just that EA doesn't care enough about that game to pay us off. It's not one of their "big" titles.

These are actual comments that come from these very forums.

So you perhaps see why I don't jump into the fray to get into a fight that isn't mine to begin with. Do I think a game journalist should be tweeting about a certain game in order to win a PS3? Of course not, that's clearly unprofessional - as was calling out that journalist by name in an article that wasn't about her, per se, but rather about the blurring line between PR and reporting. And until the audience starts from a default of giving us the benefit of the doubt, nothing anyone says about it matters. We are assumed to be liars, cheats, and thieves, no matter what we've done or said.

So no matter what you've done or said, the end result is completely beyond your control?
Now YOU know how that feels.

And just so we're clear, I DON'T think you were bought out by EA.

I don't understand your point - when haven't I known how that feels? Before I was a game journalist?

As a journalist myself, this is a bit of a tough issue. It's the right to free speech vs. maintaining journalistic integrity by not showing favoritism. Now if someone's offering you some form of reward/payment/etc. for a public endorsement, then yes, that's a breach of integrity. However, if there's no sort of compensation being provided, then there's little evidence to show that it's anything besides expressing a personal opinion.

Generally I find that the best way to avoid this, twitter-wise, is to have two separate Twitter accounts; one for professional purposes, like announcing upcoming stories or providing links to pages on your publication's website, and a separate one for personal use. It works especially well if your personal account uses an alias so people aren't going to immediately associate that account with the fact you're a journalist.

I barely recognized Sharon in today's strip. She looks pretty rough!

Maybeeee she's into that check for some *cough*NOSE*cough candy?

Poor Sharon. I hope Erin's activities didn't contribute to Sharon's drug habit.

.
.
Captcha: white elephant
.
.
Very subtle, Captcha. I wonder how many others will get your point.

RandomMan01:
The problem is, the brands in question were video games. Basically, the company in question offered several game journalists a chance to win a free PS3 if they [positively] tweeted about a game that's coming out (I forget the specific game). So not just were the journalists allowing themselves to be bribed, but they were doing it for a PS3.

To top that off, when a writer for EuroGamer wrote an article elated to it, he called out a few of them by name. One of the journalists that was called out threatened to press libel charges against the writer, so now he can no longer write for EuroGamer.

Maybe I'm just being a grumpy bugger but I have really missed the social power and relevance of Twitter, I'm not a user so I don't really understand why this matters so much.
A journalist is paid to positively name drop a game on his twitter,and?

This has probably been happening for a long time (in fact we know it has, Geissmangate however you spell it) but this time they get an incentive.
I don't really see the harm, I don't tend to follow game journalists or the gaming news as this is a hobby and not a professional pursuit of mine.

I wouldn't rush out and buy Superman 64 if Susan posted a twitter comment about how wonderful and fantastic Supes latest adventure is no more than I would something like Medal of Honor (since it's the new kid on the block).
If I was going to do that then I'd be buying it anyway (looking at you Dishonoured).

As for calling out the other journalists, well that is just pretty petty.

Mr.Mattress:
"You Will Do As Soon as this check cashes in"?

Not to be a grammer Nazi, but that really hurts my brain. You might wanna fix that or something?

Otherwise, good strip.

It's colloquial British speech. "It should do" or "you will do" is perfectly correct conversational language.

Ummm........ So if you are a games journalist in 2012 how can you NOT own a PS3?

I mean that's like being a music journalist in 1975 and NOT owning a record player. IT DID NOT HAPPEN.

The "chance" to win a PS3 shouldn't even get a head turn, let alone a twitter post.

And it turns out we both edited our posts after the original quote... so... here I go again... >.<

Susan Arendt:
Here's a perfect example - our high praise of Dragon Age 2 and Mass Effect 3 "proved" that we'd been bought by EA. Our low score for Medal of Honor, then, should surely "prove" that to be untrue, right? Oh, no. It's just that EA doesn't care enough about that game to pay us off. It's not one of their "big" titles.

These are actual comments that come from these very forums.

So you perhaps see why I don't jump into the fray to get into a fight that isn't mine to begin with. Do I think a game journalist should be tweeting about a certain game in order to win a PS3? Of course not, that's clearly unprofessional - as was calling out that journalist by name in an article that wasn't about her, per se, but rather about the blurring line between PR and reporting. And until the audience starts from a default of giving us the benefit of the doubt, nothing anyone says about it matters. We are assumed to be liars, cheats, and thieves, no matter what we've done or said.

That's actually where I'd argue you're wrong.

Ironically I almost wanted to bring up a DA2 earlier, and not to hang you. It's what usually gets termed a sleeper, reviewers look at it, they get it, they like it. The general public looks at it, and says "WTF is this shit?" Equally ironically I actually agree that DA2 was a very good game, but, it was also very uncharacteristic for Bioware's normal writing. It was both bleak, and morally ambiguous. In any other medium this would have been termed "a sleeper" and "a departure," and only the most rabid fans would have scampered off claiming the reviews were in fact dishonest.

Unfortunately, this is the industry where Ubisoft got Gamespot to change a review (sorry to keep harping on that one), where Atari threatened to sue for negative reviews, and where we've got the GMAs.

I'm sympathetic, you're in a profession with some very unprofessional colleagues, and the only way you can avoid being painted by the same brush sometimes is by doing everything you possibly can to shake the slightest hint of impropriety.

In this case, that probably meant at least running a one off news article, long before the editorials came into focus. And, yeah, you could call that just taking cheap shots, but there is a real story here. And, often, saying nothing sends a message all it's own, even when it has no relation to the truth.

 Pages 1 2 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here