Whiny, Insecure, Self-Indulgent Navel Gazing
If you’ll allow a bit of public introspection…
In the comment thread for a recent post on the value of media criticism in general, Steve Bauman wrote:
The flaw of this site, and of most “media watchers,” is that you can’t do it while being a part of the media. Only third-parties with no competing interest can properly cover the media. Frankly, Kyle isn’t fully credible when covering all of these media-related issues while he’s writing stories for many of the publications, even if everything is fully disclosed.
You also need to be extremely experienced to do this right, which again I think is a flaw of this site. With all due respect to Kyle and what he does, while some of the pieces are interesting and start nice discussions, others show a pretty fundamental lack of understanding of the inner workings of editorial sites or journalism, probably due to a lack of experience.
I’m all for “media watching” or “media analysis,” but I’m not sure it can be done properly by “some guy” who fires up a blog unless “some guy” has tons of experience and isn’t trying to hit up the people he’s supposed to be watching for work.
These are issues I’ve struggled with internally as this site has grown more popular, and I’d like to make them a little more external, if I can.
As far as experience, I don’t claim to be an expert in all things related to game journalism. When I started this site over three years ago I was just “some guy” lobbing his J-school invective from way outside the industry. Since then, I feel I’ve learned a lot about the game journalism industry through the contant process of reading, writing, and talking about it with other journalists, and that the progress in my writing has shown the benefits of this experience.
I’ve also learned by working in the industry, which brings up the conflict of interest issue. On the one hand, I’m aware of the intense hypocrisy of covering the very publications that I am also freelancing for, and in criticizing them for conflict of interest issues when my own conflicts are far from above reproach. On the other hand, I feel that the experience of actually working in the industry has tempered my opinions and made this site more valuable to the readers. I’m also compelled to freelance by the very need to “stop whining and do something about it” that started this whole discussion.
I’ve tried to be upfront about my working relationships with these sites (in the “About the Editor” page and elsewhere), but I probably haven’t highlighted them as much as I could/should. I’ve also conciously tried to avoid going easy on any outlets that I do work with, but I understand that even the appearance of a conflict of interest can be just as bad as any actual effect on content.
Are these flimsy rationalizations? Strong, intellectually consistent arguments? You tell me. To anyone who’s read this far, I want to know if you agree with Steve that my freelancing undercuts the credibility of the site. If so, how big of a problem is it (obviously not big enough to get you to stop reading, but still…)? Could this problem be solved with more disclosure? Refusal of pay from the publications I write for? Some other method?
If you don’t feel it’s a problem, why not? Haven’t you been listening to me rail against conflicts of interest these past few years? Why should I get a pass?
I’m not just looking for validation here — I really want to know what you think. If you leave lots of comments, I promise never to be this whiny and intrspective in this space again (until the next time I am).
In an ideal world, I’d have started this site after retiring from a thirty-year career that spanned every facet of the industry. Since I’m obviously not in that ideal position, what should I do about it?
on February 3rd, 2006 at 1:20 pm
Personally, I don’t think your lack of experience or your current writing gigs for the sites/mags you talk about is any kind of a problem.
You are not “Watching the Watchers” in any kind of official capacity. This site is (and always has been) one man’s opinion. And with the name change, you’ve really tried to point that out.
Some people don’t want to listen and you get more than a few “How dare you!”s from some of the commenters. But as long as you don’t lose your mind and start telling people that everything they write is wrong, that every site is corrupt and that a monkey with a PDA could write better stories I think you’re in the clear.
So keep on keepin’ on, we’ll be here.
on February 3rd, 2006 at 1:23 pm
You’re kidding me. You’re simultaneously too in bed with industry to cover it, but not experienced enough to cover it? Shall we restrict video game journalism criticism to people who have worked in the industry for ten years, quit and lived as a hermit for a few years, and now wants to write about their old industry without actually getting involved?
It’s also silly to suggest that lack of experience in the industry is a critical flaw in a critics work. In some ways experience adds its own taints. You begin to see things common inside the industry as normal and lose the end customer’s perspective. For example, I’m a computer programmer. I’ll occasionally have a friend complain about a user interface in computer software. My gut reaction is to explain why the technology behind the software lead to that interface. But I have to supress that urge because how the software came to be is irrelevant; if it’s a bad interface it’s a bad interface. Take, for example, reviewers working from review copies based on incomplete games. As a general rule such a reviewer won’t mention bugs in the game on the theory that it’s an incomplete game. But when the final game ships with the bugs intact, it makes the reviewer look lazy at best and in bed with the publisher at worst. Behind the scenes it makes since (without the review copy you’ll lag other publications and lose readers, and usually most of the bugs are cleaned up by final release), but to the end reader of the article it’s irrelevant.
All that said, yes, that you’re seeking work from the same people you critique does taint your criticism. It doesn’t make you a non-credible source, but it will lead to people wondering if a business relationship impacted your writing here. Ultimately we can never know for sure. Of course the same is true for any critic. It’s possible that the critic is working in the industry under a pseudonym. Knowing about your connection does keep that concern in the back of my mind. Ultimately you’re still writing good stuff. I personally believe that your professional work has not significantly tainted your writing here, so I keep reading.
on February 3rd, 2006 at 1:26 pm
I don’t believe you can do both credibly–be critical of the media while being a participant–but I’ve already made that clear.
Disclosure has to be explicit in each piece; every time you mention a site/publication you’ve written for, it has to be disclosed. (And arguably, you should do it if you mention a competitor to one of those entitites.)
Online, I think a lot of people assume they have regular visitors, so they know who you write for. Which is true, and people will probably get sick of the disclosures. But for someone just randomly stumbling on the site, they’re critical. Without being upfront about potential conflicts-of-interest, you can destroy your credibility if the person finds it out on their own. And as we all know, it’s hard to earn credibility, and easy to lose it.
I think you have to know the industry in order to cover the industry, and you have to have been in the press in order to cover the press. That said, I’d rather a “media watcher” be someone no longer involved the press but who has experience with its day-to-day trials and tribulations.
While I suspect the majority of your readers think it’s fine that you cover the media and write for some of the outlets, I think you need to decide if you want to be a media watcher or a game journalist. I don’t think you can do both any more than I could be the editor of a game magazine and a game designer at Electronic Arts. Would readers think that’s kosher?
on February 3rd, 2006 at 1:39 pm
“Shall we restrict video game journalism criticism to people who have worked in the industry for ten years, quit and lived as a hermit for a few years, and now wants to write about their old industry without actually getting involved?”
Taking this argument to its extreme, do you value equally the opinions of that 10-year veteran and a 10-year-old?
Experience matters in anything. While that doesn’t mean someone new has no insight, they need to earn credibility and gain experience so that what they say–even if they’re right–has more weight.
“Take, for example, reviewers working from review copies based on incomplete games.”
An experienced reviewer already understands that game publishers have exactly zero credibility when it comes to saying, “We’ll fix the bugs.” Someone new is more likely to fall into this particular trap.
“It doesn’t make you a non-credible source, but it will lead to people wondering if a business relationship impacted your writing here.”
No one says it makes for a non-credible source. But if you don’t think it negatively impacts credibility, well… I don’t really know where to start. People think game publications are corrupted by ads–it’s sort of accepted as fact, despite all of the evidence otherwise–but Kyle Orland is somehow above the fray when his livelihood is also dictated by those he’s supposed to be criticizing and covering?
Just because you may agree with what someone says doesn’t give them credibility. I’m just a random guy posting on a message board; if I say, “All journalists are on the take! They’re corrupt!” blah blah blah. You may nod your head in agreement, but what if you heard that from a former journalist, who backed it up with research and named names?
on February 3rd, 2006 at 1:44 pm
“You are not “Watching the Watchers” in any kind of official capacity. This site is (and always has been) one man’s opinion.”
… an opinion which he’s presumably leveraged into those gigs with other publications, which kind of takes this beyond “just some guy’s” site and opinion. Now it’s by “Kyle Orland, contributor to X, Y, Z. The freelance gigs give his views here more credibility and perspective while at the same time negatively impacting his credibility in his “media watcher” capacity.
Funny, that.
on February 3rd, 2006 at 2:06 pm
To be honest, I’ve never thought of your blog as anything more than a place where game coverage is talked about. “Media watch” certainly beats the old “ombudsman” stuff which implies a freedom from conflict and some sort of standing. The fact that you aren’t a ten year veteran of the editorial side does mean that your reflections tend to more closely mirror those of the average game mag reader or of a wee freelancer on the margins. Which is not necessarily a bad thing. Sometimes an outsider look is valuable even if it leads to people like Steve riding in to correct “misconceptions”.
It’s when the outsider becomes the insider that the ethical questions arise and I have no firm opinion on that yet. Your profile here (and any reputation you have earned) is a marketable one and I’d be stingy to tell you not to market it. But Steve is right that there is a price to be paid for that if your public profile in print or on a major site grows. If you write for a website, for example, and are bio’ed as the proprietor of VGMwatch, is this read as an implicit endorsement of the journalism on the site in question? If the VGMwatch tag is left off, does that make things better or worse?
I’d hate for you to have to choose between writing this (which doesn’t pay) and freelancing (which doesn’t pay well) because I’m not sure that the conflict is inherent or can’t be overcome. Plus, I like what you write here even when you’re wrong.
Frankly, I’m more disturbed that you link to AVault without any touch of irony.
on February 3rd, 2006 at 2:10 pm
To be clear, both my writing for this site and my freelance writing do pay, and pretty well at that. Not quite well enough to quit my day job and buy a solid gold yacht but… the income is nice on both ends.
on February 3rd, 2006 at 2:12 pm
But again, this is not some “official” post.
No disrespect Steve, but you seem seriously hung up on Kyle’s old title as “Video Game Ombudsman.” Yes, it was a poor choice for a title when all the site was were his thoughts, but he has changed that and toned down the condemnation in his posts.
But that kind of fire was what led to the popularity of the site in the first place.
It almost sounds like you want to slam Kyle for his inexperience while at the same time telling him he can’t get experience because it corrupt his writing.
You can’t have it both ways.
on February 3rd, 2006 at 2:37 pm
“No disrespect Steve, but you seem seriously hung up on Kyle’s old title as “Video Game Ombudsman.” Yes, it was a poor choice for a title when all the site was were his thoughts, but he has changed that and toned down the condemnation in his posts.”
What is an ombudsman but a media watcher (though one specifically directed at its own publication)?
The name has changed, but the general approach hasn’t; this is a site that looks at issues involving the media. Ombudsman was a bit pretentious and misleading, but my point remains that I don’t believe can label yourself a “media watcher” while being an active member and part of the media you’re supposedly watching.
“It almost sounds like you want to slam Kyle for his inexperience while at the same time telling him he can’t get experience because it corrupt his writing.”
First off, I’m not “slamming” him at all. I'’m being blunt for clarity. I think. I hope it doesn’t come across as slamming.
I’m not saying he can’t get experience; that’s absolutely critical to what he seems to want to do here. My contention is that you can’t do both at the same time, get experience with game journalism while reporting on those who are giving you said experience.
There’s a very good reason most respected “media watchers” and obmudsmen are former editors/journalists, not just some guy out of j-school, not the guy who’s still writing regular articles, or just someone hired off the street.
on February 3rd, 2006 at 4:04 pm
As a close friend and partner of Kyle Orland, I really don’t think this should be much of an issue. Talks of third party watchdog groups are a lofty idealistic dream. The game media is too young for that.
If you haven’t noticed, Kyle is a pretty visible figure in the game media. He’s featured in the major mainstream news sites…places like CBS and major newspapers. He’s constantly invited to participate in panels and interviews for stories on the game media. He’s got the cred in my opinion. I don’t see any harm in him going around and writing a few editorials around the media he often represents. I also don’t think there’s a problem with the publication being attached to a prominent media network in the game industry either.
The fact of the matter is besides E-mpire’s NintendoNow.com and VGMWatch.com publications, there’s been practically no coverage of the game media’s many problems. No one’s wanted to touch this issue it seems. Sure, there’s been rants and columns here and there. But no publication that Im aware of has stepped up to the plate to confront the game media establishment and call for change. Things like bias, slant, and corruption in the game media have been great concerns of game consumers for years now…And so I think we should all be thankful that we’ve got at least two publications that have taken strides to look into these issues on a regular basis.
It seems to be catching on too…we’re seeing more journalists like Dan Hsu come out and join the bandwagon in standing up for the consumer in regards to the lack of credibility found in many areas of the mainstream gaming media.
To me, EGM said it best years ago when they referred to Kyle as the Bill O’Reilly of the game media. He’s a watchdog that’s part of a news outlet. He has to know the biz to be able to cover it effectively. And I think he does that. And he of course is going to be more heavily scrutinized than other outlets content with keeping with the game media group mentality.
I firmly believe the two major opposition forces in the game media to watchdog services are the mainstream game media elites that are often being called out for slant or corrupt practices and the small-to-mid-sized sites which tend to look up to the media leaders’ examples and simply want to imitate them. I call them cookie cutter publications.
I think that’s enough rambling on the issue for now.
on February 3rd, 2006 at 4:28 pm
I say this as an admirer of Kyle - how frequently has Kyle stood up to a big gaming site or publication on the issue of corruption? or “slantedness”?
I’ve seen lots of good stuff on bad reporting, questionable journalistic legwork, bad use of language, clicheed writing…all noble goals. Not so much on the seedy underbelly of gaming media.
There is always all this talk about corruption and yet I never see it shown to me. Always hints, intimations, or Hsu’s “a little bird told me.” If Kyle was about investigative journalism and breaking these kinds of stories, that would be great, but frankly, very little of this site is that. To pretend that there is some grand conspiracy to keep Gamespot in its cushy offices and that can be secured by trashing some blogger is silly at best.
As for “no one has wanted to touch this issue” - it gets touched every year by somebody. I read article about corruption - real corruption - in the media well before VGO came along. Junkets and helicopter rides and all expense trips all for a little positive buzz about a game or two. Steve himself wrote an editorial calling out competitors - by name! - a couple of years before Hsu’s piece.
None of this diminishes what Kyle does here. It doesn’t have to be new or novel or pathbreaking to be valuable. He came along when blogging got big and hit a nerve that someone was eventually going to hit - he did it first. Or was that Game Journalism.com? Who knows. Doesn’t really matter.
on February 3rd, 2006 at 4:45 pm
There is a long standing history of participants also being critics, judges, and journalists in other media; I don’t see why video games should be any different in this respect. The mark of a good critic is in whether they provide useful insight into the topic at hand, NOT some sort of illusory impartiality. It’s impossible to be truly impartial on a subject (any subject) that you feel passionately enough over to write about.
That’s not to say “Hey, grind those axes!” — it’s important to strive for a balanced viewpoint, but that is decidedly not the same as an impartial one.
on February 3rd, 2006 at 5:14 pm
This is definately not some outlandish “vast media conspiracy.” No one here has suggested that. What I have suggested is that there is definately an element in the game media that has a slant that favors what I call Hollywoodization in gaming. No outlet has consistently addressed this problem consumers have been talking about except for NintendoNow.com. Formerly known as NintendoFire.com, Nintendo Now has provided columns and reports that looks into these concerns and attempts to shed light on the matters. We’ve been doing this since 1998. We also have addressed media corruption issues along the lines of what Dan Hsu has recently brought up.
There has been no other publication like VGO/VGMWatch. It serves a unique role in the game media. And it’s a welcomed role. Most of the game media is content to ignore the issues both of these publications have raised over the years. And that’s there right. However, I think it’s a great service to the fans. They ought to have at least a few publications that attempt to address the concerns they’ve had about the game media for years…And on a consistent basis.
on February 3rd, 2006 at 5:22 pm
“As a close friend and partner of Kyle Orland, I really don’t think this should be much of an issue.”
I have plenty of close friends that would vouch for me. Why does that make me more credible to you?
“If you haven’t noticed, Kyle is a pretty visible figure in the game media. He’s featured in the major mainstream news sites…places like CBS and major newspapers. He’s constantly invited to participate in panels and interviews for stories on the game media. He’s got the cred in my opinion.”
Using that criteria, so does Jack Thompson.
If he’s becoming a visible figure, than this issue of credibility and whether he can watch the media he’s a part of becomes even more important.
“I don’t see any harm in him going around and writing a few editorials around the media he often represents. I also don’t think there’s a problem with the publication being attached to a prominent media network in the game industry either. ”
I don’t see any harm in that either. Until the person in question becomes “a pretty visible figure in the game media. He’s featured in the major mainstream news sites…places like CBS and major newspapers. He’s constantly invited to participate in panels and interviews for stories on the game media.” At that point, it’s not just a guy writing little editorials.
Here’s the thing: I’m willing to accept any and all criticism, but if the guy doing it is working for a competitor, and others are taking him very seriously, that’s kind of an issue.
“The fact of the matter is besides E-mpire’s NintendoNow.com and VGMWatch.com publications, there’s been practically no coverage of the game media’s many problems.”
I think the reason is obvious: no one cares. Because what “game industry critics” fail to understand is that this is business as usual in entertainment writing. The stakes in movie and music writing are higher, and the ethics there are even dodgier. This game stuff is small potatoes.
“But no publication that Im aware of has stepped up to the plate to confront the game media establishment and call for change. ”
Well, I have. And I named names.
But in most cases, publications can’t call out other publications due to issues of credibility. If EGM takes on Game Informer, why would you believe what they have to say?
The issues of bias and slant and corruption are interesting, because you’re generally talking about objective reviews. There’s nothing to say that person X doesn’t legitmately like Game Y; people who disagree immediately whip out the bias, slant, and corruption tag to explain differing opinions.
And as for corruption, there has never been a single, documented, proven case of it happening, that I’m aware of. Yet everyone says it’s rampant. Wouldn’t there be a smoking gun? “Not if they want to work again.” Sure, but don’t you think there are a few people no longer working as journalists who’d be willing to go on the record?
“It seems to be catching on too…we’re seeing more journalists like Dan Hsu come out and join the bandwagon in standing up for the consumer in regards to the lack of credibility found in many areas of the mainstream gaming media.”
Sorry, there’s no nobility in throwing out vague accusations. Dan Hsu’s editorial did more damage than help anything. He basically tarred everyone (except EGM) with the “corruption” tag because he was unwilling and/or unable to name names. You may have read his piece and said, “Yeah, right on man!” but it was self-serving. (As was my piece when I did something similar, over a year ago.) In this case, the only thing that came about from it is that people think I’m corrupt because I don’t work for one of the magazines Dan specifically said he wasn’t referring to.
“To me, EGM said it best years ago when they referred to Kyle as the Bill O’Reilly of the game media.”
So you’re saying he uses poor logic, he has dubious ethics, and browbeats people rather than engage in debate? And you’re his close friend?
“He’s a watchdog that’s part of a news outlet.”
I could be wrong, but I’m pretty sure Bill O’Reilly isn’t doing segments about CNN, ABC, NBC, and CBS while working for Fox News.
on February 3rd, 2006 at 5:29 pm
“There is a long standing history of participants also being critics, judges, and journalists in other media; I don’t see why video games should be any different in this respect.”
I’m not totally sure I follow. I agree that a lot of journalists can be critics or judges. That’s no stretch. But how often do they become criticis of the publications they’re writing for, and other parts of the media, while still writing for those same publications? That’s such an obvious conflict-of-interest that I find it hard to believe there’d be that many examples.
on February 3rd, 2006 at 5:39 pm
“What I have suggested is that there is definately an element in the game media that has a slant that favors what I call Hollywoodization in gaming.”
I don’t even know what that means.
“We also have addressed media corruption issues along the lines of what Dan Hsu has recently brought up.”
Did you name names? Did you provide proof? Did anyone speak on the record?
“There has been no other publication like VGO/VGMWatch. It serves a unique role in the game media. And it’s a welcomed role.”
I agree. I wish it was even more pointed, and would take even stronger stands. I’m willing to face additional scrutiny.
“Most of the game media is content to ignore the issues both of these publications have raised over the years.”
That’s because of something a number of people don’t seem to get: You have no credibility when covering or criticizing a competitor.
Look at your previous discussion about your own site. Why should I believe that you’re the only ones doing those pieces, or why should I believe anything you have to say critical of a site that’s competing for eyeballs and dollars? It’s in your best interest to say you’re great, that everyone else sucks, and you’re a paragon of virtue.
Would you trust Time covering Newsweek, or Spin covering Rolling Stone, or Gamespot reporting on how shitty IGN is? The game media can’t cover the game media.
“They ought to have at least a few publications that attempt to address the concerns they’ve had about the game media for years…And on a consistent basis.”
Sure, if that’s all they’re doing.
What if you found out that one of these watchdog sites was actually owned by Ziff-Davis, Might you look at it differently? So how is that different from Kyle writing for NextGen, or other sites? Do you think they get the same level of scrutiny? Is he going to link to some particularly terrible NextGen article? Maybe he would. But the possibility that he wouldn’t is what impacts his overall credibility. It’s no different from people who say game magazines won’t criticize games from big publishers; no one wants to bite the hand that feeds them, right?
on February 3rd, 2006 at 5:45 pm
I’m never going to live that Bill O’reilly line down. Though, to be fair, that described the site roughly two years ago. I’d like to think that now I’d get compared to a different journalist.
Like….
Um…..
I’ll get back to you.
on February 3rd, 2006 at 7:02 pm
Regarding the “corruption” issue.
I’m brand new to the scene and I’m one of those unpaid fansite writers. At 28, I’m not young, but it’s nice to branch out and do different things in life. But, I digress. The reason I found this site was because I’m a regular poster at the EGM boards on 1up.com. Shawn Elliot had posted an old letter that was written by Trip Hawkins sent to EGM complaining about a low score given to some crappy 3DO game.
It struck me because as a brand spanking new editor at PGC, I’d just gotten an email from a concerned developer contesting one of my scores. (As for the result, I simply forwarded the email to the PGC’s director and went about my life–as new staff, I felt it wasn’t my place to respond to some disgruntled developer). So, I responded to Shawn’s thread saying that I just received an email that, while polite, essentially said the same thing as Hawkin’s letter.
Shawn, in turn asked for details of my case and I supplied them; he then responded with information regarding the round table Shoe, Nintendo Now, and Kyle had held. This was the first time I’d heard of Kyle, so I decided to look into this site and proceeded to give him the details of my tiny rift.
Since then, that’s become a huge concern of mine. If something as minute as a review from a fansite can generate that kind of concern, I couldn’t begin to imagine the pressures place on larger sites, magazines and their editors regarding their review scores (or other matters). Despite being unpaid, I would love to continue to write, regardless of what one may think of my talent or lack thereof. But, I can see the fear an editor may have through my own little bit of experience. Hell, I’ve been through the wringer for a guy who’s been writing only since late October: not only does one of my first reviews get me unwanted attention from a dev, but I also get called out for being a fanboy by SA. Considering those issues, I’m extremely relieved and comforted knowing that PGC has stood behind my writing for better or for worse.
Again, I’ve gone on a tangent.
Though there’s not a ton of investigative reporting done on VGMWatch, what there has been has at least given me the comfort zone to know that if I do have any future concerns, there’s someone there to listen and to work toward alleviating them (not for me specifically, but rather for gaming journalism as a whole).
As far as his position as both a freelance writer and a watchman, at this current point, I have no problem with it. The industry is still very young and the financial concerns are great. I do believe that eventually he will have to seperate himself from these conflicts of interest; but at that point, said work has to be able to pay the rent.
on February 3rd, 2006 at 7:28 pm
This whole discussion seems somewhat whiny and self serving. Sorry Kyle, but it comes accross (to me anyway) that what you want is validation, as if what you ultimately want is for us to say “It’s alright, you’re doing a fine job. Keep it up.” What should happen is that you tell us to quit our griping, and you carry on doing what you do. You’re not *really* reporting on yourself, or at least when you do, it’s fully disclosed. People have the option of reading this or not.
on February 3rd, 2006 at 7:54 pm
It is definitely whiny… it says so right in the headline. But really, I wanted to see if Steve’s concerns were shared by any other readers of the site. What I probably should have done was contact people who don’t read the site and see if this was one of the reasons they don’t. But they are a larger group and harder to get a handle on…
If I wanted to just keep doing what I was doing without any regard for what any readers think, then I would have done just that. But I don’t just want to hear “It’s alright, you’re doing a fine job. Keep it up.” unless that’s what you guys think. I do try to limit this kind of angsty, self-indulgent self-analysis on the site (it’s not a LiveJournal, after all) but occasionally I think it’s good to see if your readers needs and expectations are being met, esepcially if you’re given some sort of reason to suspect they might not be.
Great discussion so far… it’s like watching my inner demons battle it out in cyberspace. You guys have given me a lot to think about.
on February 3rd, 2006 at 7:58 pm
“If he’s becoming a visible figure, than this issue of credibility and whether he can watch the media he’s a part of becomes even more important.”
His visibility does not imperil his credibility for watching the media. Whether someone’s low profile or well known does not determine how credible their coverage of the game media’s problems is. That argument simply does not stand up to scrutiny. I raised his visibility to show how he’s going to be a desirable guest editorialist for many publications. As an outspoken member of the game media, I see no problem with him stopping by these publications to write some editorials. He’s not on their salary payrolls.
And if you actually look into his history of reports, some of the publications he’s criticized most are the ones he’s freelanced at on occasion (EGM, GameSpot and others come to mind).
“I think the reason is obvious: no one cares. Because what “game industry critics” fail to understand is that this is business as usual in entertainment writing. The stakes in movie and music writing are higher, and the ethics there are even dodgier. This game stuff is small potatoes.”
“No one cares” is something I’d expect to hear from one of the mainstream game media elites that are often the core target of bias, slant, and corruption charges, not someone like you who seems to be concerned with the current state of media affairs. The fact is people do care. Cookie cutter sites that seek to emulate their mainstream publication role models of course aren’t going to care. But the consumers do. For years thousands of game consumers have expressed via letters to publications and forum posts a genuine concern for many problems that face the game media. I’m not just talking about corruption issues but also perceived slants against certain types of game industry philosophies that don’t fit into leading media outlets’ ideal target audience. This latter issue is something NintendoNow.com has focused on more whereas VGMWatch.com has focused on the former. Both are hot issues amongst consumer circles. And both have been swept under the rug by the majority of game media outlets. I believe that practice is not good for the game industry.
“Well, I have. And I named names. ”
I believe I was talking about publications. I know some individuals have spoken up here and there but I haven’t seen visible publications make a regular effort to cover the many concerns consumers have regarding the game media except Nintendo Now and VGMWatch.com. NNow has named names in the past. And both are currently investigating many concerns regarding Dan’s recent charges of corruption. Rest assured, we will name names.
“But in most cases, publications can’t call out other publications due to issues of credibility. If EGM takes on Game Informer, why would you believe what they have to say?”
I understand your concern. A lot of game journalists share this feeling. But in reality, it’s simply not a problem if you look at examples outside of the game media. I’ll get to that later.
“The issues of bias and slant and corruption are interesting, because you’re generally talking about objective reviews. There’s nothing to say that person X doesn’t legitmately like Game Y; people who disagree immediately whip out the bias, slant, and corruption tag to explain differing opinions.”
The issue of slant and bias I often cover is not necessarily as result of the type of shady business Dan Hsu mentioned. While Hsu’s problems have been covered by us and are being heavily investigated at this time, I also like to look into concerns fans have that some major game media outlets insert opinion into news and other “objective” reports.
“And as for corruption, there has never been a single, documented, proven case of it happening, that I’m aware of. Yet everyone says it’s rampant. Wouldn’t there be a smoking gun? “Not if they want to work again.” Sure, but don’t you think there are a few people no longer working as journalists who’d be willing to go on the record?”
We’re hot on the trail of some very surprising things. We’ll be letting the consumers and industry know our findings when the time comes.
“So you’re saying he uses poor logic, he has dubious ethics, and browbeats people rather than engage in debate? And you’re his close friend?
I could be wrong, but I’m pretty sure Bill O’Reilly isn’t doing segments about CNN, ABC, NBC, and CBS while working for Fox News.”
Hehe, I knew throwing in a mention of O’Reilly’s name would get a rise out of some the game journalists…Your opinion of him is based pretty heavily on personal political convictions. That’s something I don’t want to get into in this venue. I don’t care about Bill O’Reilly’s ideology. I was referring to how he works at Fox News as a one man watchdog opinion show. He comments and investigates publications and people that he feels are of concern. The majority of cable news viewers seem to like his service, hence the reason his program is number 1—regardless of how we personally think of him.
And yes, O’Reilly will occasionally provide columns and appearances at other publications from time to time.
“ “What I have suggested is that there is definately an element in the game media that has a slant that favors what I call Hollywoodization in gaming.”
I don’t even know what that means.”
Hollywoodization is an element of the industry philosophical concerns consumers often raise against the media that my publication often looks into. I won’t go into it now, as it’s a rather complicated subject. I’ll be publishing an extensive editorial that covers this very topic and others. I’ll make sure to send you a link.
” “Most of the game media is content to ignore the issues both of these publications have raised over the years.”
That’s because of something a number of people don’t seem to get: You have no credibility when covering or criticizing a competitor.
Look at your previous discussion about your own site. Why should I believe that you’re the only ones doing those pieces, or why should I believe anything you have to say critical of a site that’s competing for eyeballs and dollars? It’s in your best interest to say you’re great, that everyone else sucks, and you’re a paragon of virtue.
Would you trust Time covering Newsweek, or Spin covering Rolling Stone, or Gamespot reporting on how shitty IGN is? The game media can’t cover the game media.
“They ought to have at least a few publications that attempt to address the concerns they’ve had about the game media for years…And on a consistent basis.”
Sure, if that’s all they’re doing. ”
And finally these last responses of yours bring me back to my promised point about the game media. Your premise has some compelling elements to it until you consider not the game media or the entertainment media but the world news media. I personally feel that because of sloppy journalism, cases of irresponsible slanted coverage, and corruption, the game media and entertainment media outlets should not be looked at as prime examples of what not to do and what to do when it comes to covering the media.
But let’s look at the world news media. While it’s not free of faults by any means, it is so vast and established you can get a good idea of how other media niches should behave. In the world news media, publications and networks call out other publications and networks all the time. They do it in their news cycle. And they do it in their editorial content. And yes, a lot of this has a lot to do with competitive reasons. But just because that’s a factor to consider doesn’t discount their credibility. For example, take a look at 2004’s “Rather-gate” scandal. CBS’s story was countered by factual information uncovered by *gasp* other media outlets. First, the blogosphere started investigating the shadiness of the reporting and then it was everywhere. Rival media network Fox News was soon at the forefront of the investigation and coverage of CBS’s scandal. Now, if we were to use your logic for who can and cannot be a watchdog, this scandal would have never been covered and in turn exposed. Why? Because the media outlets that did the work would not have stepped up to the plate and provided the people with the facts. One could argue that Fox, NBC, and others enjoyed the results of their investigation on CBS for competitive reasons, but that doesn’t discount the value in informing the public when problems and scandals arise. They have a right to know. And the potential for competitive factors should never hinder a publication from stepping up to the plate and informing consumers on the truth of the matter.
Like I said, this is a common thing in the much more mature world news media. It’s time for our adolescent media’s press outlets to accept this new watchdog element it now has and shape up or ship out. The consumers deserve this much.
on February 3rd, 2006 at 8:21 pm
“If something as minute as a review from a fansite can generate that kind of concern, I couldn’t begin to imagine the pressures place on larger sites, magazines and their editors regarding their review scores (or other matters).”
I suspect there’s more pressure on fansites and smaller ones, because the bullying has a better chance of being successful.
For the record, I’ve been the editor-in-chief of a print magazine for over 12 years and running a website that, at one point, had millions of visitors, I’ve never been seriously bullied about a rating in the way people seem to describe others receiving.
I suspect people that get more pressure do so because they come across as more desperate. They think they need the game companies more than I do; my response to any pressure would be very simple: Can I quote you on that?
But if you’re constantly begging for things, particularly before something’s released, companies may feel they have the upper hand, and will try to leverage that in other areas. But I nip that in the bud real quick; I don’t need to cover any game bad enough to get desperate.
As for David’s epic response to my epic response…
“His visibility does not imperil his credibility for watching the media.”
His visibility means more attention is paid to his own issues of credibility and ethics. Or to put it another way, do you care about the ethics of “Fred’s Game Site,” or are you concerned about Gamespot or IGN?
So he has to face more intense scrutiny as his profile rises, which is why an issue like this even matters. Journalists are supposed to disclose everything, and avoid as many things as possible that negatively impact their credibility. And I still contend that writing for the publications you cover–or more importantly, ones they compete with–lowers your own significantly.
“The fact is people do care.”
Oh, to be young and naive. Do you find IGN’s “all games get 7-9 ratings” reviews particularly credible? Does anyone really care that their editorial often reads like the drunken ramblings of a 13-year-old? IGN is one of the most popular game sites in the world.
Just because people in your circle think it’s important, or you get a bunch of hits when Slashdot says, “Look, more press bashing! Awesome!” doesn’t mean people really care. Because they’ll still go to that suppodely compromised site as soon as it has some info on a game they’re interested in.
And we can never forget one thing: This is entertainment, not hard news. No one will die if someone overrates a game.
“NNow has named names in the past.”
What names? I’m legitimately curious.
” also like to look into concerns fans have that some major game media outlets insert opinion into news and other “objective” reports.”
Most of these sites aren’t objective news sources; they’re more advocacy journalism. It’s perfectly fine to slant news if that’s your stated intent.
“I was referring to how he works at Fox News as a one man watchdog opinion show.”
You completely missed my point. He’s not a media watcher, he’s a political commentator. He covers news issues, like Bush’s speeches, or liberals acting stupid, or social security, whatever. But he doesn’t spend entire episodes attacking CNN, ABC, NBC, etc.
Jim Romenesko at Poynter, he’s a media watcher. As is Media Matters.
“For example, take a look at 2004’s “Rather-gate” scandal. CBS’s story was countered by factual information uncovered by *gasp* other media outlets.”
Thanks, you made my point, though you unfortunately missed it.
It wasn’t Fox or CNN taking the lead on CBS; they reported on the bloggers’ findings, then continued the investigation. They didn’t initiate it. Which is exactly what I said: They were covering the issue after it broke. They didn’t break it.
As I said before, Time doesn’t cover Newsweek. But if a third-party uncovers issues at Newsweek–for example, when Newsweek ran the bit about soldiers burning the Koran in Abu Graib, which turned out to be false–it becomes the one time everyone can cover their competition. And don’t think everyone doesn’t look forward to that moment.
on February 3rd, 2006 at 8:24 pm
“What I probably should have done was contact people who don’t read the site and see if this was one of the reasons they don’t. But they are a larger group and harder to get a handle on…”
Doing it this way is similar to me writing an editorial saying, “Do you think we’re credible.” Well duh, of course my readers do. Why else would they be reading.
I find it interesting that people don’t care, which I suppose makes my point: If you like something, or believe what they say is true, any ethical or credibility issues are irrelevant to most people.
on February 3rd, 2006 at 11:37 pm
Kyle, when you said “…but occasionally I think it’s good to see if your readers needs and expectations are being met…” isn’t that what this feedback area is supposed to be for? Couldn’t you be doing the same thing without becoming some 3 piece emo band?
on February 4th, 2006 at 12:27 am
I think I finally got it. The genesis of this brouhaha if you will and it was perfectly said by David way up near the top.
“If you haven’t noticed, Kyle is a pretty visible figure in the game media. He’s featured in the major mainstream news sites…places like CBS and major newspapers. He’s constantly invited to participate in panels and interviews for stories on the game media. He’s got the cred in my opinion. I don’t see any harm in him going around and writing a few editorials around the media he often represents. I also don’t think there’s a problem with the publication being attached to a prominent media network in the game industry either.”
That’s pretty good praise and after reading it I think I finally understand Steve’s objections. Kyle is just one guy. He has the same experiences and thoughts as a lot of us and yet he is the “Go To Guy” for a lot of these mainstream media outlets on a lot of different gaming topics.
But who is he? He’s a guy that started a pretty great website at a time when no one was covering video game media. So the question Steve seems to be asking is “Why is Kyle ‘The Guy’?”
And I guess that’s a separate (but equally good) question for another time.
on February 4th, 2006 at 1:05 am
I agree with Steve. There’s a place for a gaming media watchdog, but the person to take that role should be uniquely qualified for it. I think there are so many misconceptions about journalism and how it gets done that unless you’re intimately familiar with it on several fronts, you’re going to miss *a lot* of the subtle things that differentiate really good journalism from really bad journalism.
Partly for that reason, I’d be more comfortable coming here if it was just presented as the personal blog of a guy who’s interested about the way mags and sites cover games instead of Video Game Media Watch: The Video Game Journalism Review.
And I’m also cynical about just how many people genuinely care about these issues. It’s a lot easier to find people who will say all gaming media sucks and is corrupt (possibly to avoid sounding naive) than it is to find someone who dares to credit an outlet or an article as an example of good journalism. And by the same token above, I think a lot of readers wouldn’t know good, tight journalism from a well done shady hackjob. The differences can be minute to the reader, and even to the editor, which is how people like Stephen Glass and Jayson Blair managed to get where they got and do what they did.
So while I come here because I want a place that can be considered “THE Video Game Journalism Review,” I come here knowing not to expect this place to fully live up to the title.
on February 4th, 2006 at 1:57 am
“There’s a place for a gaming media watchdog, but the person to take that role should be uniquely qualified for it.”.
“So while I come here because I want a place that can be considered “THE Video Game Journalism Review,” I come here knowing not to expect this place to fully live up to the title. ”
Despite qualifications, who else–besides Kyle and NintendoNow–actively does any serious game media watching? I ask out of ignorance, I’d like to read more from others who take up this cause.
Also, what specific experience would be desirable for a person to be a gaming media watchdog?
I’m of two minds here. On the one hand I obviously don’t know of any others who do what Kyle does, but then, based on what Steve says: “This is entertainment, not hard news. No one will die if someone overrates a game.” is there really a market for exposing these issues if readers will simply ignore them anyway?
I’d like to think so, simply because I’d want journalistic standards to be upheld in any aspect and any kind of “corruption” regardless of how prevalent, should be exposed.
on February 4th, 2006 at 2:43 am
“Despite qualifications, who else–besides Kyle and NintendoNow–actively does any serious game media watching? I ask out of ignorance, I’d like to read more from others who take up this cause.”
Well, there’s GameDaily, which has a media watching section. It’s a trade magazine, so it actually isn’t in direct competition with the media entities it covers. It’s authored anonymously, which sorta bugs me.
But wow, NintendoNow is supposedly a great media watchdog? Aside from never having heard of the site, who knew? I mean, I went there right now and see things like “PC Revolution: Why The Revolution Will Work.” I dunno. It looks like a Nintendo-focused news site. As such, it has little chance of being a “media watchdog,” or I should say it has as much credibility as IGN or Gamespot when it comes to criticizing competitors.
Again, I think it shows how people view these things: That it says, “The media is corrupt” is all that matters to people. They don’t even consider that it’s in NintendoNow’s best interest to cast ethical doubts on everyone. While that’s unlikely the site’s intent, that’s one way I could easily dismiss anything it says about my publication.
“Also, what specific experience would be desirable for a person to be a gaming media watchdog?”
Someone with a lot of game media experience, not just as a freelancer but someone who’s had a full-time position, preferably with multiple publications. Maybe print and web. That’s the ideal candidate.
“I’d like to think so, simply because I’d want journalistic standards to be upheld in any aspect and any kind of “corruption” regardless of how prevalent, should be exposed.”
I’d like to think so too, but I’ve been doing the editorial thing long enough to realize that reader only care if they agree with reviews and if you get an exclusive on a game they want to read about. Everything else is just background noise. Issues of ethics, credibility, and corruption almost exclusively come up when a game large numbers of people consider bad get a slightly better review at some entity. Rather than face the idea that, “Oh my god, someone likes Driver 3? Let me read the review to find out what they saw in it!”, it’s more like, “Bought and paid for, obviously.”
Most people also don’t care about press junkets in the movie and music press, or whether Columbia or BMG is buying positive reviews. I mean, who was shocked–shocked!–that a movie studio made up a movie reviewer in order to generate positive quotes? Have you ever looked at any of the quotes that accompany commercials for awful movies? Have you heard of those guys? Does the fact that hundreds of crap movie reviews make you think less of the good ones? I know it doesn’t affect my view of, say, Roger Ebert to know that Ted Smithson of the Rocky Mountain Beaver Gazette says “Big Momma’s House 2 is a rollercoaster ride of spills, thrills, chills, and phatness!”
on February 4th, 2006 at 11:41 am
I know I’m late to the party and a little tangential, but Kyle and I had talked about some similar issues. He asked me to post the link here. There you go.
on February 4th, 2006 at 12:15 pm
Am I a bad person for having never even heard of Nintendo Now until this moment? If there’s some heavy duty media analysis going on over there, it’s shocking that I’ve never read it since I compulsively read those articles even when they suck.
on February 4th, 2006 at 12:43 pm
” know I’m late to the party and a little tangential, but Kyle and I had talked about some similar issues. He asked me to post the link here. There you go.”
You know, he’s not actually ” taking some serious fire” over credibility issues. In fact, no one’s actually said he’s not credible, just that his other work has some effect on his credibility when it comes to being a media watcher.
So, If we rate credibility on the 100% system, maybe it gives him a 75%, which is at the low-end of the 70-90% system. (Inside joke.) But taking ads for game companies might hit a game publication 10%, and that hype-y preview drops it another 5%, blah blah blah. Like I said previously, it’s hard to earn credibility and really easy to lose it.
Anyway, this is all more of a discussion than a scathing indictment. It didn’t start with, “You have no credibility!” It started with a discussion about the media covering media, which segued into this other one.
on February 4th, 2006 at 5:21 pm
“The flaw of this site, and of most “media watchers,” is that you can’t do it while being a part of the media. Only third-parties with no competing interest can properly cover the media. Frankly, Kyle isn’t fully credible when covering all of these media-related issues while he’s writing stories for many of the publications, even if everything is fully disclosed. (Steve)”
While I understand the point Steve is making and support it as a cautionary principle - Beware the contamination of self-interest! - taking it too far leads us into ad hominem.
I dare say that self-interest and/or self-involvement can and do co-exist with honesty and integrity.
The only way to have “no competing interest” is to have nothing to do with the subject or activity being critiqued, which leads us to the bizarre condition wherein the more removed from hands-on knowledge and experience you are, the more value your judgments have.
Would that extend to authors rating other people’s books, news journalists reviewing their peers regarding ethics, coverage and content censorship, judges and lawyers reviewing court cases and proposed new laws, physicans evaluating other doctors for malpractice, cops blowing the whistle on other officers for misconduct, etc?
I’m sure everyone reading this could find examples where first-hand exposure enhances analysis and criticism - and some cases where it’s essential.
I completely agree with Steve on this, though: Name names or keep your mouth shut. Dan Hsu’s stunt (yes, stunt) did not advance the ethics of the games press by one inch. If he has enough information to make an honest and defensible accusation, then make it. Otherwise he leaves himself and EGM wide open to exactly the cloud of suspicion and self-serving Steve is talking about.
on February 4th, 2006 at 5:29 pm
David:
Could you link to some of your NNow exposes on the gaming media? All I can find is a discussion of the Hsu editorial and an accusation that EGM is biased against the Nintendo handheld in favor of the PSP (hardly a creditable charge on a Nintendo site…)
I’m very interested in this issue and want to see where your site is coming from.
on February 4th, 2006 at 5:59 pm
Btw, Steve, you’re telegraphing your politics. First the Bill O’Reilly remarks, and then this:
Steve: Jim Romenesko at Poynter, he’s a media watcher. As is Media Matters.
From the Media Matters for America site:
“Using the website www.mediamatters.org as the principal vehicle for disseminating research and information, Media Matters posts rapid-response items as well as longer research and analytic reports documenting conservative misinformation throughout the media. Additionally, Media Matters works daily to notify activists, journalists, pundits, and the general public about instances of misinformation, providing them with the resources to rebut false claims and to take direct action against offending media institutions.”
Yeah, there’s some third-party objectivity for you!
(For the record: There’s a lot of good stuff at MM, but their whole operation is in the service of - liberal - political ideology. That doesn’t make them liars but it does make them advocates, not merely “media watchers.”)
on February 4th, 2006 at 7:02 pm
I’m well aware that Media Matters is a heavily left-leaning site, but it’s still a media watchdog (I would have listed a right-wing equivalent, but I’m not aware of one).
While you’re right, it movies into advocacy, my point is that It’s not covering Bush, for example; it’s covering how CNN or Fox News is covering Bush. So it’s not competing with CNN and Fox while serving as a watchdog.
“I dare say that self-interest and/or self-involvement can and do co-exist with honesty and integrity.”
Absolutely.
But to use one example, if Kyle is pitching features to NextGen Online, does that mean that site isn’t going to come under as much scrutiny? Or how about NGO’s parent Future Publishing? if they catch whiff one one of their contributors regularly criticizing PC Gamer or any of its other books, will they get upset and refuse to dole out assignments, which will then influence coverage? And how is someone from Ziff Davis supposed to view criticism from someone who regularly writes for Future publications? (And the opposite holds true; will he be hesitant to praise good work from those he write’s for in order to avoid the appearance of influence?) It’s a minefield, that’s for sure.
All of this is why it’d be a lot easier for a media watcher to have as few direct relationships with those he or she is covering. To put it another way, how would readers feel about my coverage if they found out I was regularly doing paid work on the side for EA, Ubisoft, Activision, etc.? My credibility would be shot; why would people feel different about a media watcher who takes side works from the media he’s covering?
on February 4th, 2006 at 9:48 pm
“I’d rather a “media watcher” be someone no longer involved the press but who has experience with its day-to-day trials and tribulations.”
Hey, me too. Let’s wait in line together. I’ll bring The Lord of the Rings Trivial Pursuit and a box of mini muffins.
Most of the problems with the game industry - from its portrayal in the mainstream media to the ineptitude of many game journalists - stem from it being a very young entertainment industry that grew extremely quickly. This includes our lack of a game media watchdog with the ideal distance and experience. There simply has not been enough time for such a human to develop.
If the whole industry doesn’t crumble again, many of its problems should slowly dissipate. If or when that happens, we will likely have at least one person who fits Steve’s very reasonable expectations: A video game media watchdog with broad experience who possesses no conflicts of interest.
Until then, there’s Kyle, who has nice supply of game media criticism that meets demand. It’s not a perfect arrangement, as Steve has effectively highlighted for any of Kyle’s readers who did not notice, but it is significantly better than nothing. If any change should result from Steve’s arguments, it should not go any further than Kyle peppering his articles with disclosures. For now, VGMWatch should not go anywhere.
on February 4th, 2006 at 10:22 pm
“There simply has not been enough time for such a human to develop.”
Fair enough. But how long do we get to keep using this excuse? My publication has existed for 15 years, and I’ve been in charge of it for 12 of them. Can I still use the “I’m new to this” excuse?
That people focus on the new kids, and give them all sorts of credibility through poorly reasoned and undocumented “the press is corrupt” features and editorials before they’ve had to earn it solely because they agree with the conclusions, is a bigger problem than it being a young industry.
But here’s another general question: Who are the media watchers for the movie, TV, and music press? I don’t know of any (they may exist), but my gut instinct is that no one really cares because most people realize that entertainment reporting isn’t important enough to warrant such scrutiny.
If I’m the most corrupt game journalist known to man, with the most in-bed-with-companies publication on the planet, what’s the worst thing that will happen? Someone will buy a crappy game? Hell, we’re talking about an industry where everyone already seems okay with “official” console magazines, endorsed by the console manufacturers and even featuring their logos on the cover.
on February 4th, 2006 at 10:47 pm
“It wasn’t Fox or CNN taking the lead on CBS; they reported on the bloggers’ findings, then continued the investigation. They didn’t initiate it. Which is exactly what I said: They were covering the issue after it broke. They didn’t break it.”
Is this a good thing or a bad thing?
Reporting on your competition is seen in bad light due to aspects like biased opinion, conflict of interest, and potential escalating retaliation. If NBC (rather than the bloggers) had broke Rather-gate, might CBS take a closer look to find fault with NBC in the future? Or if the audience doesn’t think it is major (as apparently they feel about Bush wiretapping issue,) such a break could cast NBC as being petty.
But shouldn’t it be *news* if CBS or NBC fabricates a story? That a decent chunk of the country has been passed incorrect information for one reason or another? Shouldn’t it be brought to light, countered, and cleared?
I don’t see this as just a “watchers watching the other watchers” situation… I see the same lack of reporting in other areas. How many times do politicians dodge issues and the general news just rolls over? Even Meet the Press just gives up without another word after a guest dodges the same question three times in a row. And half the time, any political analysis is sent to a specialist, who is generally fairly clearly biased in one direction or another.
How often does national news air a bit of info, and then just drops it? Or better yet, airs info with either an evident bias or evident ignorance? (For the latter, look at a lot of the violent game crime stories. News media likes to go for the sensational, and doesn’t like to go for really researching the issue.)
It is a bad sign when The Daily Show puts national news in better context than the national news media, appears to do better research (even though a lot of their research itself comes from watching CNN,) avoids a particular bias, and all around looks more professional than the “real” news sources?
If the national news services were better at uncovering and presenting news, should it really matter if they report on each other as well? Shouldn’t it even be their responsibility to report on each other?
on February 4th, 2006 at 11:00 pm
“But here’s another general question: Who are the media watchers for the movie, TV, and music press? I don’t know of any (they may exist), but my gut instinct is that no one really cares because most people realize that entertainment reporting isn’t important enough to warrant such scrutiny.”
I suspect most of the correctives come from inside the audience of the particular entertainment form or genre in question, An example would be the emergence of “pro-zine” horror film mags like Rue Morgue in response to the widespread belief among fans that more prominent mags like Fangoria, Cinescape & CFQ have become too shallow and uncritical to be trusted.
on February 5th, 2006 at 2:52 am
“But shouldn’t it be *news* if CBS or NBC fabricates a story? That a decent chunk of the country has been passed incorrect information for one reason or another? Shouldn’t it be brought to light, countered, and cleared?”
Absolutely. I just wouldn’t expect ABC to be the one to expose the story; the New York Times or Washington Post, or Salon.com, or some other non-direct competing media entity would have an easier time having some credibility.
This is what I’ve been saying when I argue that true analysis of the game editorial will likely come from those third-parties than from within.
“If the national news services were better at uncovering and presenting news, should it really matter if they report on each other as well? Shouldn’t it even be their responsibility to report on each other?”
No, because the news is never supposed to be about the news. If we assume their ability to report is finite, they should concentrate all of their efforts on events, not each other.
“An example would be the emergence of “pro-zine” horror film mags like Rue Morgue in response to the widespread belief among fans that more prominent mags like Fangoria, Cinescape & CFQ have become too shallow and uncritical to be trusted.”
I don’t follow that particular area, but does Rue Morgue cover the press like Fangoria and Cinescape, or is just a different/better version of the others? Because if people say, “Better media will appear if people think everything’s corrupt,” well yeah, I should hope so. But that has nothing to do with those particular magazines having a media watcher-type person out there.
on February 5th, 2006 at 4:31 am
Good distinction, there. I suppose the Rue Morgue thing is not a case of fans wanting more accountability from existing media but rather a collective expression of “Well, screw this” and transferring their loyalty, attention and money to a newcomer.
Here’s my question: Given how devoted much (of not most) of the games press is to marketing hype, preview hyperbole and industry boosterism, is there any point to an ‘ombudsman’ no matter who is doing the job? That is, do you think the problems we’re looking at here are so structural/institutional (for lack of better words) as to be immune to ANY calls for better standards?
on February 5th, 2006 at 10:31 am
isn’t that what this feedback area is supposed to be for? Couldn’t you be doing the same thing without becoming some 3 piece emo band?
If anything, this is a one piece emo band. I’m working a capella here.
Seriously, I did start this post as a reply to steve’s comments in the original thread, but since only to or three people seemed to be reading/responding to that thread, I was afraid no one would see my concerns there. This is a serious enough issue to me that I wanted to make sure it was prominent enough for all readers to see. I am determined not to let this kind of whiny self-analysis become a regular thing.
But here’s another general question: Who are the media watchers for the movie, TV, and music press?
The only ones I know of are Boston Sports Media Watch (self explanatory) and The Ombudsgod (which actually does watch the watchmen). The mere existence of these sites always make me feel less silly devoting so much digital ink to the video game press.
If we’re going to wait in line for the perfect media watcher, I’ll bring the Gamecube with Super Smash Bros, Melee and a portable screen.
on February 5th, 2006 at 11:45 am
I’m with Steve on pretty much all points, sorry Kyle. This being said, I’m sympathetic to your situation, as a good chunk of my income comes from working in the games and entertainment industry in various capacities, but I criticize these industries regularly. When it comes to my clients, I generally don’t write about them, or if I do, it’s in the context of my paid involvement with them, such as to announce the launch of a project I’ve personally worked on. I’m not too concerned about perceptions of conflict of interest, because my blog is not a “watchdog” style publication, and I try to wear my biases on my sleeve.
on February 5th, 2006 at 11:59 am
“That is, do you think the problems we’re looking at here are so structural/institutional (for lack of better words) as to be immune to ANY calls for better standards?”
The first thing we need to ask is, “What’s the problem?” Is “marketing hype, preview hyperbole and industry boosterism” really a big deal? Almost all press is guilty of this, assuming it’s something to be guilty of, but it’s not considered an ethical problem, per se. It’s more of an issue of focus, and how you perceive your role.
If there was graft throughout the industry, then sure. That’s a serious problem. People writing hype-y previews? Maybe IGN really is excited by every game that comes down the pike. Most of its readers seem to be, too.
I think the editor of PC Gamer at one time said he felt its role was to be a cheerleader for games and the industry. The magazine does this extremely well, and it’s incredibly popular. I perceive my own role to as being more about delivering information and not being a cheerleader for anything but finished product. And we’re significantly less popular.
So PC Gamer puts on its current cover, “Creative Assembly’s next masterpiece,” or something like that, when referring to Medieval 2. I’d never call any unifinished game a masterpiece, though I’m not so cynical as to assume everything will suck until proven otherwise. But people will see that Medieval 2 cover and think, “Whoa, I gotta check that out!” over more sober, informational cover stories.
The public wants hype and it wants excitement, even if it’s bad for them.
“The only ones I know of are Boston Sports Media Watch (self explanatory) and The Ombudsgod (which actually does watch the watchmen). The mere existence of these sites always make me feel less silly devoting so much digital ink to the video game press.”
I briefly looked at the Boston Media site, and it looked more like a link farm than one that analyzed the media. Maybe I’m missing something. And that Ombudsgod seemed to be about regular news, and there are plenty over media watchers of that. I’m looking for ones specifically about entertainment.
Interestingly enough, ESPN has its own ombudsman now, who regularly reports on stories/issues facing the network and its website. It’s an interesting read, because it will say things like, “The network overdid this story, it didn’t disclose its relationship with Disney, blah blah blah.”
on February 5th, 2006 at 5:41 pm
“Absolutely. I just wouldn’t expect ABC to be the one to expose the story; the New York Times or Washington Post, or Salon.com, or some other non-direct competing media entity would have an easier time having some credibility.”
So ABC should find a problem with CBS, they should just ignore it until some non-television source breaks the news first? Wouldn’t that be worse than risking credibility breaking it themselves? It would make ABC look as bad as CBS. And what if no one else noticed, so the news would otherwise never be broken? If it weren’t for the rising blogger audience, would Rather-gate have been broken?
Or should ABC go to Salon.com with the issue, so that an outside source can break it for them? That kind of practice seems more questionable than directly breaking the news themselves, bringing a third party into the mix with the presumed goal of protecting their own credibility.
“No, because the news is never supposed to be about the news. If we assume their ability to report is finite, they should concentrate all of their efforts on events, not each other.”
Except it is news. Is it better to keep reporting new material, or to correct mistakes in past material? (My answer depends on the degree and type of the mistake.) Not that much of the new material is worthwhile anyway, if you actually watch broadcast news (or the 50 zillion Datelines and other hour long magazines.)
I likewise see faults in the gaming news media *as* gaming news itself.
on February 5th, 2006 at 9:06 pm
“So ABC should find a problem with CBS, they should just ignore it until some non-television source breaks the news first?”
It depends on what we’re talking about. In the Rathergate scandal, there was a simple solution: You’d cover the actual item in question, which would expose the faulty reporting at CBS. And that’s exactly how most of these issues work themselves out.
“Wouldn’t that be worse than risking credibility breaking it themselves?”
They’re not risking credibility; they have none to lose when it comes to a competitor. You will never see a headline on ABC that says: “Exclusive Report: Behind the scenes at CNN.”
“If it weren’t for the rising blogger audience, would Rather-gate have been broken?”
Possibly. Maybe not. But other news agents would have vetted the story and sources, and likely come to different conclusions. After everyone said something else, CBS would have had no choice but to look at it again. You can be sure that the other networks would love nothing more than to poke holes in a compeitors exclusive, because they know that doing so damages the credibility of the original reporter.
“Or should ABC go to Salon.com with the issue, so that an outside source can break it for them?”
There may be some formal way to handle this with media watchdogs, or CBS’s own ombudsman. Or better yet, you just focus on the story.
“Except it is news. Is it better to keep reporting new material, or to correct mistakes in past material?”
Of course you need to correct your own mistakes. But ABC doesn’t need to keep running reports about CBS correcting its mistakes. ABC can continue to cover the original story, just not another media sources coverage of the story.
on February 6th, 2006 at 12:14 am
Everybody needs to shut up and move on. If you don’t like what Kyle is doing, quit coming here.
on February 6th, 2006 at 1:20 am
Why question the credibility to begin with? Is it not truth and honesty that is more importunate to the masses? The truth doesn’t require credibility to be true. Regardless of his associations with the very publications he purports to opine about, his notions are almost never refuted with an equal amount of factual data to the contrary.
Credibility stems from truth, not some time lapsed disassociation from the subject matter. Credibility alone doesn’t make data factual either. Many times the most credible of sources have been specious in their accounts but again, what exactly made them credible to begin with? Was it a track record of truthful accounts perhaps or their 3rd party perspective?
Answer me this. How exactly would being in the industry for 10 years give him any more credibility than his current status? If anything, I believe that would be more cause for concern as one pointed out before that experience inside can ruin the outsiders perspective and can easily lead to years of back scratching, payroll, favors and more and why exactly would he want to bite the hands that fed him for all those years?
Credibility gained now through truth and personal experience as it’s happening is far more valuable and honest than credibility gained just from having your hand in the cookie jar for a decade.
on February 6th, 2006 at 9:45 am
“Everybody needs to shut up and move on. If you don’t like what Kyle is doing, quit coming here.”
Considering that Kyle asked for this discussion, I’ll rely on him to tell me when he thinks people need to shut up, thank you. It’s because we come here that some of us take his credibility and ethics seriously. He’s clearly man enough to take criticism otherwise he wouldn’t have even opened this can of worms not with an impassioned defence but with “This guy said this and it’s worth talking about. What do you think?”
Jim:
Though I agree with your basic point that credibility is best gained through a reputation for honesty and accuracy - the truth is its own defence - I don’t think that anyone is arguing that “having your hand in the cookie jar for a decade” will make him more truthful, only more knowledgeable. Take all the criticism that many internet ravers make about the influence that ads have on content. Do these people know about the barriers that many places have between editorial and marketing? How are cover stories chosen? What are the standard industry practices on on-site reviews? What are the profit margins?
And a big part of credibility is knowledge. I can be as honest as I want when I talk about the lower house of the Romanian parliament, but my lack of familiarity with it sort of limits any credibility I might have on the issue.
Kyle probably knows some of this stuff because he is smart enough to ask questions from people who know better. Experience would make him much more valuable since he could speak from the point of having been there.
Is this the only way to do it? Of course not. No one is arguing that there is a right way and wrong way, only a better way.
But, we must take our watchers where we find them. My concern is not his inexperience (a little learning is a dangerous thing, but better than none at all…) but the larger issues of a media watcher soliciting work from those he watches. Maybe one of the magazines could have an official ombudsman, but this would limit him/her to criticizing that single outlet.
on February 6th, 2006 at 11:29 am
“Regardless of his associations with the very publications he purports to opine about, his notions are almost never refuted with an equal amount of factual data to the contrary.”
Much of what meda watchers do is interpret. At that point, it’s not just about facts but how to interpret said facts.
“Answer me this. How exactly would being in the industry for 10 years give him any more credibility than his current status? If anything, I believe that would be more cause for concern as one pointed out before that experience inside can ruin the outsiders perspective and can easily lead to years of back scratching, payroll, favors and more and why exactly would he want to bite the hands that fed him for all those years?”
It’s interesting to think experience is now considered a bad thing. My, aren’t we cynical.
So when does Kyle suddenly flip to being less credible? After a year? Five years? When is he an insider? After five articles? Twenty? He currently has his hand in the cookie jar, so to speak, by soliciting articles from those he covers and accepting ads on this site. I guess he’s already on the road to ruin.
“Credibility gained now through truth and personal experience as it’s happening is far more valuable and honest than credibility gained just from having your hand in the cookie jar for a decade.”
I don’t think anyone would argue against truth and experience being the best ways to gain credibility. But to just dismiss those who’ve been around for some arbitrary period–arguing that yeah, experience is important, just not too much experience–without considering the quality of their work is baffling.
on February 6th, 2006 at 12:23 pm
“Everybody needs to shut up and move on. If you don’t like what Kyle is doing, quit coming here. ”
“If you don’t like that they sell reviews, don’t read ‘em!”
But seriously, it’s not a bad idea from time to time to hold yourself up to the same scrutiny with which you hold others. And if you’re going to a “media analyst,” expect analysis of your own conflicts.
on February 6th, 2006 at 12:32 pm
Yeah, Kyle needs to quit whining as well and move on. He opens discussion by having comments after each blog entry. This has gone on far too long and we’re just moving in circles at this point.
on February 6th, 2006 at 12:49 pm
The difference being that he’s already a watch dog now. Continued experience won’t harm him because he has a proven track record and any sudden changes in ideologies without disclosure for said changes would be alarming as in he’ll no longer bite the hands that feed where as a watchdog starting up after a 10 year stint in the media doesn’t have that track record nor the consistently known and followed ideologies that remind the reader that these notions are still reflective of 10 years ago and continues to be critical upon the very same figures he once and always has been.
Are you gathering the difference?
Starting into the watchdog phase after an arbitrary number of years in the media breeds the problems I and others have mentioned before. Granted the interpretation of data by a 10 year vet can be very advantageous but a 10 year vet and a 2 year can both be equal depending on the individuals insightful talents. Simply put, some learn faster than other and others not at all. Experience alone doesn’t guarantee truth in interpretations.
Starting early in his journalism and watch dog careers will emplace checks upon his character to remain loyal to the readers and not the media publications he writes for and gain the continued insightful knowledge of experience that you request.
I think Kyle has exactly the right idea. Instead of us waiting 10 or so years from now for an industry vet (granted a 10 year vet could do so now and not just 10 years from now.) to take up the ropes of watchdog with no guarantee of unbiased reporting, we are gaining a 10 year vet in the making that maintains credibility and gains the continued insight of experience.
It’s the best of both worlds.
on February 6th, 2006 at 1:45 pm
“Are you gathering the difference?”
Yes, but that doesn’t make your logic any sounder, or the conflicts-of-interest with working for the entities you’re supposeed to cover any less real.
As I’ve said, would you be fine if the editor of Gamespot or IGN was also hitting up Electronic Arts, Ubisoft, and Activision for work? How is that different than what Kyle is doing?
“Starting into the watchdog phase after an arbitrary number of years in the media breeds the problems I and others have mentioned before. ”
Based on what examples? What you’re failing to realize is that this so-called 10-year veteran would no longer be in the media, or trying to pitch the publications he’s covering for articles. If that’s the case, he’d have no issues with biting the hands that feeds him.
“Experience alone doesn’t guarantee truth in interpretations.”
I do like this idea, that there’s some “truth” in an interpretation. We’re generally not talking black and white issues here.
“Starting early in his journalism and watch dog careers will emplace checks upon his character to remain loyal to the readers and not the media publications he writes for and gain the continued insightful knowledge of experience that you request.”
I have no idea what this even means.
“Instead of us waiting 10 or so years from now for an industry vet (granted a 10 year vet could do so now and not just 10 years from now.) to take up the ropes of watchdog with no guarantee of unbiased reporting, we are gaining a 10 year vet in the making that maintains credibility and gains the continued insight of experience.”
Fair enough. But what if, during that “experience gathering” phase, he does a lot of damage to the publications he covers due to a lack of experience, a lack of analytical ability, or general errors? Haven’t we all been saying the lack of quality in the game press is at least partially a result of the low barrier to entry, to a lot of amateurs doing the work, and they make everyone look sort of bad? So now it’s suddenly a good thing?
Also, what makes you believe Kyle is an unbiased reporter? Remember, he’s working for the publications he’s watching. He is, effectively, that editor of a game magazine also working Electronic Arts.
This isn’t to say he’s biased. But the appearance of potential bias or conflict-of-interest is undeniable. And that’s all anyone’s really saying here.
on February 6th, 2006 at 4:01 pm
OK, so what started first, the journalism with the media publications or the watchdog? His early interpretations, though with little experience in the industry would at least be honest. If his interpretations remain similar even after working with media publications then it can be assumed (yeah, I know, touchy word there) that his opinionations are still uninfluenced just as they were in the beginning.
What I meant by checks in his career is that he cannot come back a year or two later with a completely different opinion regarding a publication without fully disclosing why the change of heart from the past. Any major ideological changes with no basis noted will then be looked upon with suspicious eyes. Each article he writes creates a check that future articles to be compared to.
Unintended “damage to the publications he covers” can happen regardless of experience level or insightful knowledge.
Personally, I think it speaks volumes that Kyle can write for a publication and follow up that with a candid assessment of the experience. THAT is credibility to me. Any publication that would attempt to sway him or use his freelance gig as leverage to keep their publication out of Kyles column is simply giving him a free blowout article to write about. It’s in their best interest to keep Kyle unbiased.
on February 6th, 2006 at 4:35 pm
“His early interpretations, though with little experience in the industry would at least be honest.”
What if they’re honestly wrong?
Or look at it this way: I just started a site. I write glowing reviews of terrible, terrible games because I’ve never played anything better. Is that cool? At least it’s honest, right?
“If his interpretations remain similar even after working with media publications then it can be assumed (yeah, I know, touchy word there) that his opinionations are still uninfluenced just as they were in the beginning.”
The question is, how do you know? If he says today, “EGM is a paragon of journalistic integrity,” then writes for them and says something similar two years from now, how do you know he hasn’t buried 20 stories about journalistic improprieties at EGM in the meantime?
Journalists should try to avoid any appearance of bias or of conflicts-of-interest. Working for those you cover is a clear one. If it’s unavoidable, as in the case of ABC covering Disney, you need full disclosure. If it’s avoidable, avoid it (as in, I don’t run around asking Electronic Arts for freelance work, and one doing media watching should consider whether he or she can properly cover that media while hitting them up for work). This isn’t exactly a radical viewpoint.
on February 6th, 2006 at 7:04 pm
Wrong can happen regardless of experience. I’d rather a token of honestly be the initial foundation. Credibility is no guarantee. A level of trust is still required but what grants that trust? I find that to be an individual choice and not somethig either of us could pinpoitn for everyone..
I understand the conflict of interest issue and I think we may be on the same page regarding much of this just simply looking at different viewpoints. I think he can maintain credibility and still freelance. The full disclosures and back articles can help balance the act.
Is it a perfect system? No but what is exactly is? His accounts either truthful or not are no more untrue due to his associations with the very publications he writes out about.
With every publication we read, we must put trust in their integrity. True in that some may be harder to trust than others for some people. I guess trust, credibility and integrity are all subjective to the reader to a degree.
on February 7th, 2006 at 2:51 am
You know I love this site and since it became VGMWatch instead of VGO, I belive this site/blog has improved alot.
But if you want someone else to make a video game industry review..
What would you be looking for in such a publication?
I say Kyle keep up the good work. If you ever want to do a print publication, send me an email.
on February 7th, 2006 at 4:40 am
Jim, you write for Nintendo Now, correct? I’m guessing most people in this thread have at least some experience as a game reviewer, and I’m guessing all of them have seen a message board post about a review they wrote or their site ran saying something to the effect of “OMG! Money Hatz! Every1 knowz that site is bought and paid 4!!” Or maybe they’ve just made other generalizations or accusations about your site that you know are born out of a profound misunderstanding of the way things work, the way your operation is put together. Every job has quirks that people simply don’t understand until they do it themselves. So for an outsider with little understanding of the inner workings of the industry to act as a watchdog, I think there’s a real danger there of him jumping to inaccurate conclusions or mischaracterizing situations. Assuming a better educated readership with proper perspective on The Way Things Work would benefit everyone and force magazines and sites to hold themselves to higher standards, an inexperienced watchdog’s work could actually be a detriment to his or her own cause. “If you cannot hit the nail properly, please do not hit it at all.”
I don’t quite subscribe to that view (in the absence of a superior alternative, I prefer something over nothing), but it does cause some concern for me to see someone passing judgment on the work of others without having walked in their shoes (or shoes very similar to theirs, let’s say). And no, freelancing isn’t the same as being a fulltime staff member or editor.
on February 7th, 2006 at 5:27 am
“I’m guessing all of them have seen a message board post about a review they wrote or their site ran saying something to the effect of “OMG! Money Hatz! Every1 knowz that site is bought and paid 4!!” Or maybe they’ve just made other generalizations or accusations about your site that you know are born out of a profound misunderstanding of the way things work, the way your operation is put together.”
HAHAHAHA!! Yeah, I know that feeling all too well.
“So for an outsider with little understanding of the inner workings of the industry to act as a watchdog, I think there’s a real danger there of him jumping to inaccurate conclusions or mischaracterizing situations. Assuming a better educated readership with proper perspective on The Way Things Work would benefit everyone and force magazines and sites to hold themselves to higher standards, an inexperienced watchdog’s work could actually be a detriment to his or her own cause. ‘If you cannot hit the nail properly, please do not hit it at all.’”
I think the quality of one’s work speaks for itself. Anyone who calls themselves a watchdog but speaks out of ignorance will eventually lose the trust and goodwill of most of his or her readership. The importance is in having facts to back up all arguments and proof to back up accusations. To the extent that I’ve read VGM Watch I trust Kyle completely–despite his agreement with Something Awful regarding my article.
Kyle has earned his trust. But, as much as he’s keeping his eye on the media, his readers will keep an eye on him. For every check, there’s eventually some balance. And like Steve said, should it all fall apart, and Kyle is seduced by promises of mansions and swimming pools just to keep mum about a publication’s shady dealings, what’s the worst that can happen? A bad game is purchased? People are buying 50 Cent’s game despite the reviews.
on February 7th, 2006 at 11:07 am
“I think he can maintain credibility and still freelance.”
Then answer this question: Would the editor of a game magazine have credibility if he or she freelanced for various game publishers?
“Anyone who calls themselves a watchdog but speaks out of ignorance will eventually lose the trust and goodwill of most of his or her readership.”
But here’s the thing: how would most people know if the analysis is off? I think that as long as it matches their own view of things, they wouldn’t. Look at the response to most of those “The Problem With Game Journalism” pieces. Most were poorly argued, but the response was mostly, “Yeah, man! Stick it to ‘em!”
I find it curious to see how easy it is to become some sort of “expert” when you have such limited experience. I see errors here, or interpretations that don’t hold up to close scrutiny. Some of my issues may be matters of opinion, but I think others are due to a lack of perspective and experience. (Or, at a minumum, they don’t match my own experiences.)
on February 7th, 2006 at 11:27 am
“But here’s the thing: how would most people know if the analysis is off? I think that as long as it matches their own view of things, they wouldn’t. Look at the response to most of those ‘The Problem With Game Journalism’ pieces. Most were poorly argued, but the response was mostly, ‘Yeah, man! Stick it to ‘em!’”
Well, there’s preaching to the choir and there’s real news analysis. That’s why I was careful to say they’d suffer losing “most” of their readership. There’s a lot to be said for the loyalty of sheep, but those with the most credibility should succeed over those who simply have an agenda. I don’t say that to be idealistic, I absolutely believe that would be the case in a market as specific as Games Media Watching.
on February 7th, 2006 at 2:43 pm
I have to concede Steve’s point about the “appearance of impropriety,” to borrow a current expression.
Let’s face it, Dan Hsu’s complaints about cover stories for sale - and similar remarks from CGW’s Jeff Green awhile back - are tainted by the fact that the objects of their criticism also happen to be business competitors. This doesn’t mean that either man is lying (I don’t think they are) but coupled with their refusal to name names, it destroys any positive effect their speaking out might have.
Steve’s right; you can’t play the game and be a referee at the same time.
on February 7th, 2006 at 2:46 pm
…Which is not to say that VGMW should shut down or that Kyle owes anyone an apology. I like this site and hope he keeps at it. His media watchdogging is good and, frankly, sorely needed.
on February 7th, 2006 at 4:17 pm
But is it “sorely needed?”
I don’t really think it is (and I actually hink Hsu was grandstanding a bit with his ‘bought and paid for’ accusations). The industry works pretty well without the need of a watchdog, but it makes good reading and that’s why I’ll always have VGO, VGM Watch or whatever it’s called bookmarked on my PC.
on February 7th, 2006 at 8:38 pm
This has gone quite a bit beyond Kyle. While the entire issue is worthy of thought, there is a scale/perspective issue at hand.
Kyle’s work on this site has been fairly general. Yes, posts are on specific topics and with specific examples from specific sites, but the issues themselves are often general. Some posts will go as far as to reference five or more different sites exemplifying a similar problem. Other posts may only mention one site, but we know more than one site will post PR pieces (near) verbatim as news, for example.
Kyle isn’t doing deep investigations. No, by deep I don’t mean actually trying to contact people before posting news. His mention of attaching ads to the front covers of magazines wasn’t a hard hitting expose on payoola, but rather just raised a few issues and voiced a complaint or two on the practice.
Compare that to Hsu’s piece, where the editor of a magazine cast doubt upon everyone else in the field other than his own charge and perhaps a few friends. Nor was it just raising/questioning the issue, but the claim that he knew specific instances. There *were* groups guilty of his charge, it wasn’t just a concern of suspicion. (Even so, if Hsu had named the names he knew, his piece would be taken in a different light. Or if there were results ready elsewhere around or right after the editorial to support, rather than just the claim that another media site would be doing an investigation of the claims.)
As for NintendoNow, every time I’ve looked at the site, it has appeared to be a fairly standard console-specific media site. Nothing particularly hard hitting, and a few things that are a bit questionably enthusiatic towards Nintendo. (The latter to be expected for a console specific site. You do specifics either because you favor or hate the subject.) The main differences are that it isn’t as enthusiatic as some (PlanetGamecube posting rumors and speculations as fact during slow news periods) and comments are by people who don’t automatically damn the competition.
on February 7th, 2006 at 8:47 pm
Another issue is that of separation. As a few others, I’m concerned about cases where the watchdog is too far outside the system. Objectivity may be easier to believe, but there comes the question of the worth of what is being found.
Plus, at this point, there probably isn’t anywhere near the demand to support someone entirely outside the industry. Not the money to pay for the work, the public to read the work, nor the connections to gain or investigate the work. Other industries respond to enquiry in part because of the consequences of not responding, in addition to the impact of the scandal as well as other factors.
on February 9th, 2006 at 3:46 am
Entertaining/depressing diversion tangentially related to the discussion. Although this is a worst-case scenario, this is what can happen when one magazine or website reports on the competition:
http://www.ga-forum.com/showthread.php?s=816b0bd4ebc2766cd1ce0d242e1e81db&t=85071
And I probably should have mentioned earlier, your lives will all be markedly less valuable for having read that.
on February 9th, 2006 at 1:37 pm
“So I encourage all the game writers out there to keep whining about the sorry state of game journalism, but I also urge us all to recognize the problems with our own writing.”
That’s my favorite part of this whole essay about videogame journalism. I recognize that I am an amateur videogame journalist and I’m not about to offer any opinions about the state of the art, in general. But I have no problem sitting around for hours figuring out what I do right and wrong in my own writing.
I’m also trying to analyze the first-person POV side of videogame journalism, asking questions like: What does my daily life have to do with these virtual worlds I write about? How can I play with the first-person POV in new ways? Can there be a gonzo-style videogame journalism?
If anybody is asking themselves these same questions, visit me here and sound off…
Cheers,
Jason Boog
on February 10th, 2006 at 8:38 am
And I think this thread answers the question of who watches the watchmen.
Steve watches the watchmen.
KG
on February 10th, 2006 at 2:11 pm
And who watches Steve?
on February 10th, 2006 at 2:40 pm
The watchdogs.
on February 10th, 2006 at 7:16 pm
From Brenden’s post: “Although this is a worst-case scenario, this is what can happen when one magazine or website reports on the competition:”
Checking the link, all the problems came from one argumentative poster (”SuperPac”) who believed EGM to be by default much more credible than Kiziko. That kind of behavior happens in forums even without a news poster calling another publication’s mistake by name.
The bad part for Kiziko is that the ending of the source article was written in a controversial tone rather than an informative one. Compounding the problem on Kiziko’s side is that they cannot actually prove that EGM exagerated or made up the confirmation claim, even though EGM most likely did exactly that. It is one thing to be able to say “When asked, Suzuki-san said VF5 will be on the PS3″ and another entirely to say “will not” or “was neither confirmed or denied.” Gamers know that companies will dodge and outright lie in order to deny news that they don’t want released yet.
on February 14th, 2006 at 10:00 pm
Just posting here to violently criticize your criticism of the criticism of your criticism:
You suck!
. . .
I’m going to go drink a cup of tea, stand in the bathroom, and repeatedly slap myself in the face, now. Wednesday morning, et cetera.
on February 17th, 2006 at 4:35 am
sorry, very late to this discussion, but i just wanted to say:
(a) perhaps the blog simply needs another renaming? kyle’s thoughts on video game media or something like that
(b) steve makes some good points, but it’s almost like he’s saying, on one hand, that kyle’s position lacks credibility; but on the other hand, it’s just videogame journalism so it doesn’t really matter anyway. so i’m not sure what the big kafuffle is about in that case.