Gaming Signal: The integrity of game journalists

The integrity of game journalists

Dan "Shoe" Hsu, the editor-in-chief of Electronic Gaming Monthly recently wrote an editorial commenting on the lack of integrity with a couple of unnamed game magazines and an unnamed game web site. He claims that publishers have told him that the cover and editorial coverage (previews, prominent placement, etc.) for these entities was for sale and that publishers could purchase this prominent placement through ad buys. He's certainly stirred up a hornets nest with this (just read some of the reader comments.)

I have some thoughts on this and on the overall state of the field of gaming journalism.

Being an avid reader and a person who enjoys magazines, especially game magazines, even when young it didn't take long to realize how some magazines loved every game - never giving any a bad score, and rarely finding anything wrong with the games they reviewed. I'm positive you've read such a magazine - they tend to be high on flash and low on substance and I feel they are pretty recognizable. Any magazine with more pictures than paragraphs of writing needs to be seriously questioned. I realized then that these magazines pandered to the publishers - taking ad revenue in exchange for coverage. And thus I knew that I would never read that magazine again.

Johnny Wilson, as editor-in-chief of Computer Gaming World, once wrote in an editorial that they refused to do this sort of thing and that there was a very definite 'Chinese wall' between the ad department and the editorial staff. Sure, there are times when the teams have to talk - making sure a game ad doesn't get printed in with the review, getting ads to match the themes of upcoming issues, and when working with a game company on a preview. But these instances had to be managed carefully - always keeping an eye on the integrity of the magazine.

Of course, there are more pressures on editors than just advertising revenue. Say you're out at a convention and a game publisher wants to take you out to dinner - you know he's going to try to push his products and if he picks up the tab, you're going to feel beholden to him, at least a little. Ethically the journalist shouldn't accept a free dinner or a free anything from a publisher. At the Xbox 360 launch Microsoft randomly gave away 1000 42" plasma TVs. What about those game journalists that won? Assuming they kept the TV, does this make them more appreciative of Microsoft? It has to! It won't automatically make them like the 360 or a Microsoft game, but the journalist is going to be pretty pleased while playing games on that TV and is at least going to give them some credit, even subconsciously.

Game companies also ply editors for coverage by hosting journalists for events - going so far as to pay for the flights and hotels. A former editor told me he sometimes bent the rules when not accepting a trip would put his magazine at a competitive disadvantage. If the game company was paying for lots of journalists to fly out, he sometimes saved his budget by allowing those trips even though it was against company policy. In a way this was good for the readers - it allowed the magazine to cover that game AND to potentially use the saved money to cover smaller titles (ones without huge PR budgets.) But the ethical question is still there - if Bioware just paid for your first class ticket, stay at a top hotel, and dinners at great restaurants, you're going to have a hard time not at least being kind to Jade Empire come review time.

For his writings, Dan has taken a lot of flak by people pointing out that by refusing to name the names, his integrity is questioned as well. Is he merely trying to deflect aspersions from his own publication? Does he even have evidence at all, or is this just made up to 'stir the pot'? Hasn't he just unfairly indicted everyone? And is this what passes for journalism - anonymous name calling? And in many ways he has invited more criticism by responding to blog posts and interviews stating who it isn't when presented with guesses.

Dan's overall response is - this was an editorial in EGM, not a hard-hitting news story in Newsweek. He points out that EGM isn't the place for such an article (and he's right) but that it needed to be said, to get the industry to seriously look at itself. You can read more about this by way of a round-table done by NintendoNow including Dan and some industry watchdog folks.

Personally, I disagree strongly with the way Dan has done this - he shouldn't have stated he had some proof but refused to present it. He definitely shouldn't now be in the 'it isn't this one or that one' mode. But I'm glad he has brought the issue to light. I prefer Johnny Wilson's approach better - just state that while others might, you won't ever promote a product to induce advertisement revenue. It doesn't point the finger at others, but it does let the reader know to beware; that all is not what it seems. As readers, we have to remember that game journalists aren't that much different from TV/movie reporters (i.e. Entertainment Tonight.) They get caught up in the hype just like we do.