7 more reasons for bogus games "journalism" [update 1]

by Vladimir Cole { May 30th 2006 at 2:30AM }

Why do games "journalists" publish so many lies, untruths and half-truths? There are seven reasons, according to GameDaily BIZ: (1) fanboyishness, (2) wimpiness, (3) laziness, (4) inexperience with real journalism, (5) herd mentality, (6) sensationalism, (7) confusion over technicalities.

A solid list on an important topic...

We just wish GameDaily BIZ hadn't unwittingly illustrated one of their own points. By publishing their best criticism under an anonymous pseudonym ("Mr. Media Coverage"), GameDaily proves a corollary of rule #2: few games-industry writers are willing to put their own names down next to honest criticism because they fear reprisals of some sort.

[Update 1: corrected a typo in third paragraph.]

Tags: games industry, journalism, media, press

Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)

Fanboyism @ May 30th 2006 2:35AM

This same phenom happens with the Mac/Windows war... Fanboyism. One always has to be better.

OS X is better though. :)

Ritz @ May 30th 2006 2:43AM

Hmm. Any solid examples from credible sites? I know there was a major problem with blogs relating to Wii and the (at the time, mysterious) controller design. Wikipedia is known to house some pretty bad ideas as truths too (although I still find it mostly reliable).

But any examples of where Joystiq has made this error in the past, or other established sites stumbling into these pitfalls? For the most part, I haven't noticed many problems. I agree strongly with #2 though.

Lost Fragment @ May 30th 2006 2:54AM

Heh, funny that this goes up tonight. I read a comment on a different story earlier that made me wish I had gotten the opportunity to enact the changes I had in mind when I administered a fairly large pro bono site.

All those are very true, but unfortunately, I don't believe it's going to change much; it's just the nature of the industry at the moment. If you're not fanboying, you're inexperienced. If you're not inexperienced, you're worried about your relationship with company PR, as most of them can sustain themselves by only dealing with outlets backed by millionaires. If you're not concerned about that, then you're probably concerned with not having a good enough relationship to score pre-release builds, as early reviews and previews are the only real "exclusives" most smaller sites get.

This is not to say that the big outlets don't fall pray to any of those too often, though :P

There are too many different variables for game journalism to ever be exactly like "real" journalism, im my opinion. From my PoV, things have been less wishy washy lately because of a few sites, though :P

Jaded @ May 30th 2006 2:57AM

Now cue the herd of commenters who will somehow take offense at this and follow it up with some sort of argument that good journalism doesn't matter in for videogames because games aren't that important.

Seriously folks, if it's good enough for you to read, it's good enough for somebody to do a good job at. If you want to read a press release, go ahead and do so. Nobody's stopping you.

dsub @ May 30th 2006 3:19AM

I think the biggest culprit of these "half-truths and lies" are game reviews. In my opinion, WAY to many reviews on games are FAR to kind. I get very sick and tired of reading reviews in which the writer seems to be trying so hard not to bash a game as if they are going to hurt someone's feelings or something.

We all know that on any weekly basis there is usually ONE game that is just awful. Yet in the average gaming mag you'd be hard pressed to find a game that received a score of less than 6 or 7. Why is that? Now, there are some people who actually have the guts to speak there mind and say when something sucks. Dan Shoe at EGM is one that comes to mind, and I also find the reviews here at joystiq to be truthful most times. For example, here are a few excerpts from last month's issue of EGM. This is a review of Splinter Cell Essentials for PSP. EGM often has three different takes on a game. I've played Essentials, and it's garbage, but I'll start off with "Mark's" take on the game.

He starts out by saying..."The great thing about Essentials is how faithfully it reproduces the full console experience" then he later goes on to say, "but the problem with Essentials is how faithfully it reproduces the console experience". He gave the game a 7/10. His review was nothing but babbling about how the game felt like the console version, and stated that as the games only strength AND weakness. It makes no sense.

Next we have Dan Shoe, the guy we all know that got bold with Peter Moore. Anyways, he's the kind of guy that knows how to be honest, and not hold back, the way a critic should be. He starts off by saying, "Is he working for the bad guy, or is he being setup in this Tom Clancy world of political intrigue?, I would give a crap, if this game weren't so god damn terrible." Right from the start, he tells it how it is. He then goes on to ellaborate on the many points of why this game is terrible. (Poor controls, Bad Graphics, Crashes, Jumpy Framerate)

But this is where the problem is...we read reviews to help decide what games we should play or buy. Yet for every poor score, like Shoe's in EGM, there is a good score that someone else gave the game. It's completely confusing and inconsistent. Some games are just so bad, that the only way I think they could garner a score like 7/10 is through sympathy. Sympathy is not what I want. I want truth. I'm about to drop $50-60 on a game, and I want to know if it's worth my cash or not. Don't bullshit me. Reviews are so full of bullshit these days I don't even buy games until I've played them myself. I shouldn't have to do that. I realize that a review is an opinion, but that opinion at least needs to be backed up.

pom @ May 30th 2006 3:20AM

I like the image you used for this article, Joystiq; its quite fitting.

Looking forward to the next anti-Sony article!

numlok @ May 30th 2006 3:23AM

#8: Mass media is not taking games journalism seriously, so no real writer would want to write about games.

Ken @ May 30th 2006 3:25AM

One variable in the equation no one seems to be talking about are the consumers. The gamer public consuming the gamer press plainly guilty of looking for the lightest of journalistic content. Just take a look at what gamers consistently Digg for and you'll see that most of it is fanboy and sensational type of articles. It's no wonder that the press and publishers enjoy throwing chum into the frenzy. So if you look at the whole equation, everyone is guilty of this bad journalism.

oldhat @ May 30th 2006 3:29AM

Having written for a gunrag a few years ago, it's all in the money. Manufacturers pay your bills, and they make damn sure your article is in their favor.

DaveKap @ May 30th 2006 3:29AM

Funny that journalists even find there to be an epidemic with "lies, untruths and half-truths" when in most cases, the true problem is opinion versus opinion. What game reviewing (just like movie reviewing and TV reviewing) needs are a clear-cut "this is what I like" biography that is easy to access (like "here is my review, check my bio at this link" easy). Then, a reader simply has to check a reviewer's history to see if their opinion matters to them or not. So why hasn't this been done yet? As far as I'm concerned, reviews are incredibly hard to write without being bias one way or another anyway.

Matthew @ May 30th 2006 3:48AM

Journalism is kind of a tricky thing though. Most points, I think, will come through in the form of an opinion. I think it's important to separate the "ego" from the "I AM." When it comes to creativity, I don't think there's an ultimate truth. I've had many disagreements with different "journalists" point of view. I think, really, everyone is a journalist. The only difference is some are "concert journalists." Like someone learning how to play the piano, but that talent doesn't go beyond the confines of their own homes. And then you have the concert pianist.

Matthew @ May 30th 2006 3:57AM

dsub, you need to realize that you cannot get the "full truth" by reading a review alone. You are reading something that is a perception from someone else's point of view. If I hated hockey, and you loved it, who's too say that I'm right? I'll try and give you every reason why I think hockey sucks, and you'll try to give me every reason why you think it's good. These days, I really feel you need to at least try the game out for yourself. Rent it. It's like reading a book on how to drive a car, and then telling everyone that now you know how to drive a car. It's one thing reading it, it's an entirely different thing experiencing it first-hand. Especially with interactive entertainment. I think this principle applied to videogames to some degree.

ben @ May 30th 2006 4:30AM

Don't mean to be pedantic (honest!) but when writing about journalism, make sure your grammar is tighter than Sonys 'tilt sensitive' controller...well actually make it MUCH tighter than that!

"few games-industry writers are willing to put their own names down next to honest criticism because their fear reprisals of some sort"

love from across the pond

benj

cap-n-crunch @ May 30th 2006 4:45AM

what about number 8 arrogance. It seems unfair to me that journalist like egm's shoe can print a magazine cover that reads xbox 360 vs ps3 and that makes senstaional statments like Solid Snake is locked and loaded and ready to lead the ps3 into battle the xbox 360 and fuel the console war fires and the second someone questions the balance of the tone of the magazine toward one console it back to "OH it's only about the games" then why do i doubt I'll ever hear egm say "Master cheif is ready to stick a plasma granade up the sony's new toy!!"

SHOE could probably learn a little from dan rather if everybody says your being unfair then you may want to question the possibilty of your own supreme superiority. I didnt mind the tough interview he did with moore I'm just wondering why egm didnt show the same balls at 2005 e3 when I was curious if the ps3 footage was realor prerendered and hasnt showed them since.(they did an interview with nintendo since then with kiddie gloves of course )

But if you read the egm letter section you know they they will dissmiss this argument by printing some nutcases letter and make thier famous WERE biased toward GOOD GAMES NOT SYSTEMS

Kent Houseman @ May 30th 2006 4:47AM

Dsub is right. I can not count on most reviews when considering buying a game. It is nearly impossible to get a thorough review out when it is still relevant. The "professional" reviewers don't have the time to play a game long enough to get a credible opinion. They know it and deep down you know it too. But they get paid to tell you what you should or shouldn't buy. What do you really expect? Writing a review for gamespot or for that matter, video game journalism altogether, is a business. It also seems interesting that no one ever seems to mention that the majority of sponsors for videogame magazines and websites are video game companies getting their games reviewed. Sure we can find plenty of instances where a site/magazine just lashed into a game and see an ad for a game in another page/link but how can you not at least wonder if there is anything more to the relationship? Biased reviews, un-deserved praise, etc have happened in situations similar to this in other industries where a lot of money was riding on the public’s acceptance of a band/movie/product.

Also, to the fanboys out there. If you dare bitch about biased journalism I hope you can pull your heads out of your asses for one moment and think. Since it is you guys that buy most of the magazines, the magazines are clearly trying to cater to you. I don’t even care if they make fun of fanboys in the magazine itself. That would be like me standing next to you and calling someone else stupid. You point and laugh at that person and the sweet irony puts a smile across my face. So when you call a magazine biased about something it is probably just catering to another large segment of fanboys at the moment. They will come back to you after a bit. If they really were biased and claimed otherwise they wouldn’t sell as many magazines would they? Or do you think you’d be the only one smart enough to figure it out?

If you want a good laugh go to gamefaqs.com and look at user reviews. It is extreme one way or the other(most of the time). If you call out the reviewers in any way (just ask them to name a few bad points of the game) they will get incredibly defensive. That is until they get tired of that particular masterpiece after a week and jump on the next game (seriously, Blockbuster, you should hire some of these guys, they can make a game seem awesome from looking at the pictures on the back of the box). If you see a review that is actually critical of a game, expect major bitching to follow on the message boards. Even if the game still got a 9/10 when clearly the major plot hole, was in fact, not a plot hole, but a plot device used to enhance the story and the game is supposed to cause your system to reset at random times, it adds to the tense mood of the game you idiot!

Also, I hate people that get the "new game" high and praise a game before really even playing it. You only have a glimpse. Sure you can probably give a good heads up on gameplay (lot of exceptions) and graphics (well for the very brief time you played at least), but you can't give too much insight on the story that the back of the box can not cover already. You can not really cover the music either. If after playing a game for a day or two you feel you have a pretty good grasp on the music then you are of course going to score the game very low for having incredibly bad music that you can't take anymore or having very little variety making you feel like you have the gist of it. Wow that kind of applies to all categories. I know they are decent words to emphasize things but if I see an "extreme!1!1durrrrr" adjective to describe a game in a review I have to close it. They are there to add a little oomph to a point. If you describe something by just being "bad ass" "f-ing awesome" that doesn't tell me anything except you have ran past the review area of thinking into the fanboy rant area. What I call "hell".

The worst is the fanboy review. This review pretty much forces you into thinking it is being compared to something else. It is either obvious or impossible to tell what because in 99.9% of cases the reviewer never played the other one and played this game for only 5 minutes. This is referred to as "GTA syndrome" it applies to any review that deals with GTA or a GTA clone (excuse me I meant to say a game that falls into the same genre as GTA, whew I could already hear the angry clicking/typing of fanboys before I caught that). Before it was "The Brawler syndrome".

Quite frankly, if you wanted something to be as close to “un-biased” as possible, you’d have to find a source that got its funding from something other than the video game industry. A person that was exposed to all 3 systems at the same time. Etc etc etc (aka not going to happen)

Kent

Kent Houseman @ May 30th 2006 4:51AM

PS. Bitching sells. I am more likely to tune in and see why a show is so awful, offensive, or even biased than to see why a show is great. Although I will definately keep watching the great show while moving on to see the next thing that is being bitched about.

We have no one to blame but ourselves.

allen @ May 30th 2006 4:53AM

"few games-industry writers are willing to put their own names down next to honest criticism because their fear reprisals of some sort"

There are times when this is true, but there are also times when it is not.

Some websites hold off on giving proper credit to some new writers' articles to ensure that these writers will stay with the website and continue to write in a consistent manner.

In other words, doing this prevents wannabe writers from "quiting the game" as soon as they are published and gain Internet notariety.

Most of the websites that employ such methods do replace the pseudonyms with the real names of the authors after a certain amount of time has passed or after these authors have proven their committment to continue to write consistently and effectively.

vc @ May 30th 2006 5:08AM

Thanks, BenJ. Fixed the typo.

vc @ May 30th 2006 5:17AM

Great point, Allen.

Invincibul @ May 30th 2006 7:00AM

Bogus Game Journalism should be STOPPED. The views must be neutral and should have a logic perspective. This should apply to everywhere even if its EGM or The Washington Post or Kotaku,etc. Game Bashing (Master chief Kicks Snake's ass, Zelda Wins), Console Death threats ( like the PS3 is gonna die, HD-DVD will win) should be stopped. Most of them even would write books with out even seeing the PS3, Or that 360 will be incorporated into NASA's Space shuttle or that Killzone PS3 is a pre-rendered Movie made by Pixar and Disney drop-outs ot the Wii will be bundled with the Zelda game. People can express their views but the above examples are not views but these are threats, rants,etc.
THIS HAS GOT TO STOP. THERE HAS TO BE NO MORE FAN BOYISM EVEN IN JOYSTIQ.

FOR FREE SPEECH BUT NOT FOR ASSHOLES WHO TAINT FREE SPEECH.

Efren @ May 30th 2006 7:31AM

Want an example? Go read the IGN review of Super Mario Sunshine.

What a piece of crap that article was.. they called SMS the best mario game of all time, and it helped convince me to buy a Gamecube.

I've regretted it ever since.

Jeff @ May 30th 2006 7:37AM

The one thing I think they left off the list is actual, honest-to-god journalistic training and education. Experience alone is not enough; you can't wake up one day and call yourself a journalist just because you've been doing it for a while (well, you can, but it doesn't make it true).

Most "real" journalists went to journalism school. You know, where they teach things about ethics and objectivity and editorial voice, not to mention proper English usage and adherence to style guides. It's not strictly 100% necessary but without it, you are at a severe disadvantage unless you make a conscious effort to formally train yourself in these (and other) journalistic standards. And most game writers do not do that.

I think it's worth pointing out because a lot of people outside the industry (and I mean the news industry, not the games industry) don't even seem to realize that there is such a thing as journalism school, that there are degrees that at least guarantee you have a basic level of journalism training, and that there are various levels of journalistic accreditation. You don't just wake up one day and call yourself a doctor because your brother cut himself and you put a band-aid on it for him, and you don't call yourself a journalist just because you write a few articles about games every week.

Moogle @ May 30th 2006 9:05AM

I was just thinking about fanboyism, so this seems like an ok place to brain dump.

Fanboyism is a naturally occuring phenomenon.

The worst way to convince someone is to give them a weak argument. If Andy just said the PS3 was expensive, and Bob replies by saying that the 360 is expensive if you buy all these attachements, Andy's response is to become defensive. He starts thinking about why he bought a 360, that he didn't buy those attachments, and he starts forming arguments in his head about why the 360 is better.

Since Andy created these arguments himself, he believes them much more strongly than whatever Bob said. Bob has planted the seeds of fanboyism in Andy. When Andy reads other people's comments that say the same things he was thinking, it reinforces his pro-360 ideas. He'll eventually end up defending his 360 against other PS3 fans, thus creating more fanboys on both sides.

So for everyone that complains about the proliferation of Nintendo fanboys: It's your fault. Every time you say the word 'kiddie', it irks a thousand people who enjoy Nintendo games over the ages and don't consider themselves childish.

The stupider you sound when you attack someone else's arguments (see don_sf's completely off-topic post about PS3 vs 360 in the MindArk story after this one), the more effective you are in reinforcing the opposite attitude. In contrast, if you sound smart or likable you're more likely to sway others. Appeal to authority helps as well (EGM rated all these 360 games highly, so there are good games for the system (or whatever, I made that up))

For the record, this is the case for our Democrat vs Republican government, and why it's so easy for cultists to become fanatical - a whole lot of weak criticism. Sadly, there's little you can do to stop other people from being stupid. I have no solutions, just hoping to bring some understanding.

Back on topic (*everyone breaths a sigh of relief*)

oldhat - Yes, some magazines get pushed around by bastard companies. They eventually get marked as industry shills. If there's enough room in the market, someone will start a magazine that actually tries to be unbiased, and they'll get popular because of it, they'll make money, people will want to advertise in the regardless of criticism, and if the magazine falls on hard times, it might think twice about posting a critical story about one of their big advertisers. Thus the cycle begins anew.

Some industries are going to have enough room where the top magazines can stay mostly untainted indefinitely. I think the video game industry happens to be one of these cases. It might be the case that if you're not one of the big industry mags, then you'll have to fight over the scraps, where objectivity vs advertising revenue is a really hard choice. Blogs are making some ground here when they have few enough costs or big enough backing that they can say what they want with impunity.

duscrom @ May 30th 2006 9:14AM

dsub: I think you give a bad example. That peter Moore article wasn't honest, or anything, it was confrontational and rude. ("Why don't the games look as good as you said.. I mean. look at these 3 bad ports" If I were peter moore I'd have been like "Well don't ask me these questions, go to Activision, ask THEM why they Half-assed a port and slaped a $60 price tag on it. My machine has the power to do everything I said.")

Annyway.. It seems the only way to be "Honest" about something is to be mean about it. If I reviewed Half-Life 2, and gave it a 4.. am I being balsy, it bashing it because I can? Am I giving it to you honestly, or Am i just bitching for no good reason.

Thing is, We all forget that Reviews are all subjective. We're reading someone's opinion. For every game you love, i could probabbly find someone who can tell you WHY it sucks. Reviewers who are put on a game have to either be biased towards, or against it.

Prof-KOS @ May 30th 2006 9:14AM

Bias injournalism is a difficult issue to pin down a cause for. This list is as good as any others because with so many media outlets covering various news events there are a multitude of different factors that contribute to bias. One of the most troublesome is competition. In this case Joystiq and other blogs and online news sites are trying to become the preeminent source of information for gaming to the most people so that their advertising is worth more. They can therefore make more money. One of the biggest differential advantages that a site like this can covet is breadth and depth of content as well as timeliness. Since so much news is being delivered online now, it is important to be one of the first to report on a story. Competition is important but it also breeds innaccuracies when outlets rush to get the story out first.

Were news sites and blogs differis in purpose. A news site's purpose is to relay a story, while a blog is designed to promote discussion on the topic in question. This is why Joystiq will most often refer the reader to a news site for the actual story. I often go to a news site to get the news then go to a blog to enter into a discussion regarding the topic.

It is important for those people who accuse blogs of bias to remember the difference. Joystiq and other blogs are places where you can enter into a discussion and debate your views. In this regard it is the best medium for expanding your awareness about the topic. There should be posts that will provoke discussion on a blog. Right now the preeminent discussion for gamers is the price and value of the PS3. Joystiq realizes this and posts more topics related to this. This results in more discussion and because of that there are more readers and more advertising revenue. The fact that you disagree doesn't mean that Joystiq is in the pay of Microsoft or Nintendo. The whole industry is a little peeved at Sony right now, why wouldn't the majority of gamers be too?

Jay @ May 30th 2006 9:26AM

I've read a few magazine and newspaper articles that have a blatant siding when it comes to consoles and games. The most notorious is Live, a Saturday UK magazine. It tries to be hip and modern, yet they say things like "since the PSP destroyed DS sales Nintendo has felt the need to reintroduce the DS" etc. Yea, destroyed. The PSP is becoming another tragedy to Nintendo's indestructible handheld market and this journalist thinks the other.

Madness.

Bill @ May 30th 2006 9:54AM

Fanboyism said:
OS X is better though. :)

I think you're right!

Merus @ May 30th 2006 9:56AM

"We all forget that Reviews are all subjective. We're reading someone's opinion."

And that's the most journalism we usually get. There's no 'story behind the story', there's no exposes, there's rarely even anything on what we're playing NOW.

If videogames are ever going to be anything other than something to grow out of; if they're ever going to be a valid mode of expression; if we're ever going to shut Ebert up, because the last two sounded a bit too highbrow; if we're ever going to get over talking about games in a highbrow fashion; then gaming journalism is going to have to grow up and grow a pair of fucking testicles. You don't see movie reviewers fawning at movie studios, even though the movie reviewers need to get to those preview screenings to get their reviews in for opening weekend. And you still see politicians front up to tough journalists who will ask terribly damaging questions (maybe not in the bread-and-circus US media, but you certainly do elsewhere) because the politicians know that if they don't, people will know they have something to hide, and if they come out unscathed it'll impress. If Dan Hsu goes around and gives the industry a proverbial asskicking and someone comes out unscathed, then that company will look like they're giving it to people some sort of straight.

So long as Hsu can actually ask the tought questions, which comes back to the point of games journalists being gamers who can write a bit instead of actual journos.

Zack from ClubSkill @ May 30th 2006 10:30AM

The simple fact here is that sensationalism sells. Take the recent 360 vs. PS3 story in EGM. That they're even making such a simplistic assessment of the industry and perpetuating the idea of a "console war" should tell us that that's what gets attention from the average consumer. Even game company executives have picked up on this notion, leading them to take swipes at the competition to get easy publicity.

The fanboy audience is larger than people might like to think. What happens with any number of stories is fanboy A gets pissed at the tone of the article, fanboy B picks out a perceived slight, both send in an angry letter (which, if it's poorly written and crazy enough, will be published) and both continue to buy the magazine because that righteous indignation gives them a sense of purpose and accomplishment.

I, personally, am trying to fight both this fanboy ignorance, and the money-grubbing industry standard of giving the good reviews to those who pay. For example, 24: The Game was a bad third-person shooter with a twitchy and nauseating camera and I can't believe the favorable reviews it got. I have to wonder just how much of Rupert Murdoch's advertising money went to those who gave high review scores the game simply didn't deserve.

It may take a while for game journalism to develop it's own standards and principles, especially in this age where ad money is the new kick-back, but I ask people to demand more from your game writing. Don't be nice about it, and don't make snide comments just give the guys writing fluff pieces and sensationalist stories a piece of your mind.

32_Footsteps @ May 30th 2006 10:42AM

I always love this conversation.

First, my responses to a couple of quotes, above.

"We all know that on any weekly basis there is usually ONE game that is just awful. Yet in the average gaming mag you'd be hard pressed to find a game that received a score of less than 6 or 7. Why is that?"

I asked this just about a week ago, when Joystiq linked to a couple reviews for the newest X-Men game. I heard lots of people trying to support the more blatant ass-kissing reviews by saying that a 60 or 70 in school is failing, so it should be failing for a video game review too. To some extent, this line of thinking might guide some video game reviewers as well. Personally, I'm of the belief that if the game is utterly average, it should get the exact midpoint of the grading scale in question (2.5/5, 50/100, 5/10, or whatever). I was quickly alerted, however, to the fact that many gamers would disagree with me on that account.

"Mass media is not taking games journalism seriously, so no real writer would want to write about games."

There's some truth to that, though some solid writers like Dean Takahashi are doing their best to refute that.

"The one thing I think they left off the list is actual, honest-to-god journalistic training and education. Experience alone is not enough; you can't wake up one day and call yourself a journalist just because you've been doing it for a while (well, you can, but it doesn't make it true)."

You know, I'm a bit guilty here myself. Truth is, as much as I push for better journalism standards in video game coverage, I have no formal training as a journalist. In college, I studied French literature. Everything I know about journalism comes from a) info I looked up for free online and b) what I personally would like to see out of the media (and not just video game media, media in general).

As much as I've gotten complimented on my writing (Joystiq in particular has been kind to me), I know that in some ways I'm part of the problem with video game journalism, even as I try to help with the solution.

Now, with that said, I think video gaming should try to emulate actual journalism... but one major flaw we have these days is that actual journalism isn't being practiced even amongst "serious journalists".

Now, more often than not, journalists on regular beats like politics are failing in a slightly different way - they try to stress objectivity to the point that they'll give equal time to anyone, no matter how blatantly wrong someone is, in order to appear objective.

However, the goal of journalism is not, despite what some think, objectivity. The goal is the truth. Anything that is editorial-based can certainly contain opinion and subjective thought. However, for that which is not obviously the opinion of the writer or cited as the opinion of another, it must be the truth.

Ultimately, the search for the truth is what should drive each and every journalist. However, more often than not this isn't even an afterthought for so many that would claim that title. Until video game journalists start hunting for the truth, we're going to be a joke amongst journalists.

Beagle Bros 2nd cousin twice removed @ May 30th 2006 10:50AM

Personally, I believe we're all biased in some form or another, and we include our biases in what we choose to write or how we write, or respond. That's not to say you cannot write an article about something you do not feel passionately about, but it certainly helps when you're interested in the topic.

I think any journalist needs to have good ethics and integrity. Once you cross the lines, your reputation may be shattered, and your readers disillusioned.

The one example that always comes to mind is the incident involving Stephen Glass when he worked for the New Republic from 1995-1998, where it was found that he fabricated in part or in whole, 27 of his 41 stories.

You have to be ethical.

It's good to be thorough. Do you have all the information necessary to publish your piece? Do you have enough sources? Can those sources be verified indepedently?

Disclosure. I don't see this one often enough, but I do know publications that will mention a potential conflict of interest in their stories. Entertainment Weekly often mentions that they're owned by Time/Warner when they have stories about any of their 'sister' companies. Is there a conflict of interest present? I dunno, but at least they're upfront about it and they let the reader decide. I would think it worse should the reader discover this on their own.

Accuracy. If your facts are not straight, you've just invited someone to correct you. This one isn't always easy, but it goes to being thorough.

Fairness. This is a difficult one. But you have to be open to letting people respond and offer different viewpoints when they believe you're wrong.

Canadian Geese @ May 30th 2006 11:08AM

Without biased, fanboy articles, what would we do with our free time? It's fun to promote emotional responses from fanboys simply by stating my personal opinion. =)

lacking cleverness @ May 30th 2006 11:23AM

I don't think these problems are limited to video game journalism.

"Sensationalism" and "herd mentality" certainly aren't, at least. The major media outlets have an unfortunate habit of repeating the same news constantly. One need only peruse Lexis/Nexus to note how many stories have been written about Y2K, school shootings, avian flu and a host of other issues that have been blown out of proportion.

I'm not saying that those stories aren't worth coverage, I'm saying that the amount and type of coverage they receive is overblown.

Without opening the Pandora's box of bias in "professional" journalism, I will say that sometimes writers do shade their stories to fit with personal biases.

Thus, I think the writer of this piece, in claiming "inexperience with real journalism" as a major problem with video game journalism, is overlooking the fact that experienced, real journalists have the same faults.

cyrix_0 @ May 30th 2006 11:39AM

Joystiq reaks with Fanboys...

and Articles that cater for this audience.

MetaHuman @ May 30th 2006 11:55AM

Videogame journalism should go beyond criticizing companies and then defending those companies when scrutinized by the non-gaming public. My general preconception of gaming journalism, defined by 'standards' that all videogame media provide, such as company activity,

Issues like the illegal WoW gold-farmers (in China or Korea, I think it was). Now THAT was journalism taking on gaming as an important issue. THAT had significant social impact. Reviews and plain editorialising without leaving the office chair does not make a serious reporter or news organization.

There are much more serious things to think about and report on than blaming fanboys or fanboyism for everything. Real professionalism CHALLENGES readers to question articles, not the topic of the news, but the integrity of the writers themselves. You can't expect that because you write professionally that people will listen to you. You must establish a TRUST with your readers.

A highly rhetorical question: Many readers believe that Nintendo did so well in the latest Joystiq poll because of Nintendo fanboys. Now, if Nintendo fanboys frequent the sight, a large number of them could be readers. Scrutiny from article writers and from fellow commentors are sure to drive Nintendo fanboys into apprehensiveness. So, in a sense, Joystiq isn't doing the best they can. The writers have lots of pep but the reader community could share more respect than it currently gives to certain groups, like fanboys. Even though I said the reader community, Joystiq must ENCOURAGE this mutual respect, even if some of these 'fanboys' are hostile. THAT is real integrity.

MetaHuman @ May 30th 2006 11:59AM

*company activity, industry editorials, interviews, reviews and such, really doesn't go beyond anything that their fellow journalists do.

Sorry, missed stuff in my 1st paragraph.

cringer8 @ May 30th 2006 12:13PM

@Jeff

College degrees are overrated. You can cheat your way through college, never absorbing one iota of information and come out with more "credentials" than these video game journalists. It doesn't mean one is better than the other. Judge a person on their ACTUAL performance in the field, not their accompanying paperwork.

Being a journalist is EASY. There, I said it. As long you're literate and unbiased, you're good to go. The rest is all fluff. The readers will decide if they like your phrasing and paragraph constructions. If you're a crappy interviewer, that will be self-evident as well.

This list is ridiculous. The only item in there that I don't see all over the television and in the printed press is #4; which, coincidentally, is the least important of all.

Pedro @ May 30th 2006 12:17PM

In joystig case is mayor fanboyism and a combination of the other 6. Joystig loves sony bashing and their latest poll shows it. I saw the same poll run by other people (2 weeks ago) and the results were the other way around. Joystig loves microsoft.

SetupWeasel @ May 30th 2006 1:34PM

This is the same person who compared the negative press for the name "Wii" to the negative press Michael Jackson recieved when he was accused of molesting children.

I've said it once, and I will say it again. Mr. Cole, the kettle is indeed black. Stop pointing it out.