• For our 10th anniversary on May 9th, 2024, we will be giving out 15 GB of free, off-shore, DMCA-resistant file storage per user, and very possibly, public video hosting! For more details, check a look at our roadmap here.

    Welcome to the edge of the civilized internet! All our official content can be found here. If you have any questions, try our FAQ here or see our video on why this site exists at all!

I'm a former game journo - AMA

Chimpzy

Adherent
Messages
67
I never really spoke about this at the Escapist, but I worked as a freelance journalist for four years, doing general and entertainment news. But during that time, I also wrote (p)reviews, features and news articles for a few games magazines and the gaming sections of some men's and entertainment publications. In short, I have worked profesionally as a game journo.

So, here's your chance. Feel free to ask me anything. You'll get a fully truthful answer. Mind you, I can only relate my personal experiences. I can't and won't speak for others.

Inb4 some brings it up tho:

No, I have never been offered money for a good review.
 

Samtemdo8

Devotee
Messages
120
Is bribery and nepotism rampant in modern jounalism?

Especially in Movie journalism because I often wonder why there hasn't been a "Moviegate" yet?
 

bluegate

Disciple
Sanctuary legend
Messages
292
What publications did you write for?

What games did you write about?

What did you enjoy writing about the most?

Would you like a banana?
 

Signa

Libertarian Contrarian
Sanctuary legend
Messages
764
Does the challenge of a difficult game get even more frustrating when it's keeping you from finishing/progressing in a game and stopping you from writing the article?
 

Chimpzy

Adherent
Messages
67
Arnox said:
What is your opinion of the news groups in the U.S. (or maybe even the world) right now?
Well, I'm not American and I haven't worked in the sector for about 6 years now. That's long time in media and I haven't been keeping up with recent trends. I honestly don't think I could say anything about the current American media landscape that you don't already know, seeing as I'm now just an outside observer anymore.

Houseman said:
What's your opinion on Gamergate?
A difficult question, because to this day I still don't have a clear idea of what Gamergate actually was. What was it about? Fuck if I know. That question seems to have about as many answer as there were people on either side of its fence. Was it a consumer revolt? Was it a movement against unethical collusion, and a lack of journalistic integrity and transparency in games media? Perhaps a culture war over cultural diversification, artistic recognition, and social criticism in video games? A right-wing backlash against progressivism? Was it about the social identity of gamers? No clear goals, nor motives.

All in all, a massive and confusing shitshow that made a lot of people very angry and/or hurt, and when it all comes down to it, changed little for the better and benefited no one (save maybe the big publishers). A low point in gaming history that will be remembered for the harassment, the doxxing and the death threats, and not for whatever good intentions and ideas were to be found on either side. And that, in my opinion, is probably the worst thing about it.
Samtemdo8 said:
Is bribery and nepotism rampant in modern journalism?

Especially in Movie journalism because I often wonder why there hasn't been a "Moviegate" yet?
I can only speak for myself and to some degree the people I worked with, but no, I have never been offered a bribe, nor do I know any colleagues who were offered, let alone took one. Though I have been to some of those lavish all expenses paid preview events, because my boss told me to and because we had little other choice if we wanted any coverage on a particular game. It was either go or have nothing. It was also common to be given goodie bags, which I always accepted, partly out of politeness, partly because it was frankly one of the few perks of the job and sometimes there'd be something in the bag that was actually useful, and not junk merchandise (still got my LEGO piece breadbox). I always reviewed a game on its own merits regardless. I don't remember the specifics, but I actually got some publishers miffed a few times. One time was with EA because of how I scored Battlefield 3 (lower than Modern Warfare 2, how DARE I), Fortunately, the editor-in-chiefs I worked with were bros and always backed up my decisions (defending their journalists IS part of their job).

As for nepotism, I didn't get the job through family connections, nor did I use mine to land relatives a job. Don't know anyone who did either. Honestly, journalism is not the kind of sector where you last long if you're not at least competent at your job. It's too cutthroat for that. Although that doesn't rule anything out.

Does that mean there is no bribery or nepotism in journalism? There probably is. Can't really judge whether it's more or less than other sectors.
 

Chimpzy

Adherent
Messages
67
bluegate said:
What publications did you write for?

What games did you write about?

What did you enjoy writing about the most?

Would you like a banana?
I wrote for a variety of publications such as Chief and Gunk/9Lives (gaming magazines), P-Magazine, Che and Menzo (men's magazines), Gazet van Antwerpen, De Morgen and Het Laatste Nieuws (newspapers) and Focus (general entertainment magazine, though rarely). These are the ones I worked for regularly. On occasion, I also did some work as a cameraman for local tv stations.

As for what games I wrote about? Pretty much any, really. Console games, PC games, handheld games, and pretty much any genre. You often don't really get to pick and choose what games you (p)review. About once a week I'd drop in at the office, and the chief editor would hand me a handful of games. "I want x words by deadline". It could be good games or bad ones. Genres I like, or ones I really don't. And I'd earnestly play them and wrote about them to the best of my ability. Because it was my job.

One exception to this was Chief, where I had my own little section on indie games. My editor-in-chief pretty much gave me free rein over it, so I could pick which games I wanted and how much words I spent on each, so long as I filled the pages. Usually I went with a larger review on a big name indie title on the first page, then two smaller ones on the next, one a lesser name, the other a free game (actually free, not free-to-play). Somewhat of a downside was that I had to arrange for review copies myself, rather than the office getting sent one by the publisher like with AAA games. Not that that was particularly hard.

Most fun thing to write about. Honestly? Bad games. And I don't mean a game I don't like, but real bottom of the barrel stuff.

To quote Anton Ego from Ratatouille: "We thrive on negative criticism, which is fun to write and to read."

The second part of that sentence is definitely true. As a writer, it's really enjoyable to hammer down on a shitty game and to find all kinds of creative ways of describing its badness. Especially when it was already widely established that a game is crap before reviews were in order, because then you can really go to town with little risk of pissing off publishers or the readership. People getting butthurt over stuff you wrote pretty much is part of the job, but that doesn't make it fun to deal with. Knowing you wouldn't have to honestly felt nice. Oh, they'd grumble, but only a little, because they knew it's a stinker.

Bananas are not a question, they are the answer. So, YES! Always.

Monoochrom said:
Also, is ideological purity a problem?
Too much ideological purity, or too little? Because both can be problematic under certain circumstances.

Signa said:
Does the challenge of a difficult game get even more frustrating when it's keeping you from finishing/progressing in a game and stopping you from writing the article?
Yes, it does. I always worked with deadlines. Although I always tried to finish a game before writing my review, I'll admit there have been times where I plain ran out of time and had to make do. I always loathed having to do that. Similarly, one of my least favorite assignments was getting a big rpg, because you were never given enough time to finish it. For example, I had to do Persona 4 Golden, but only had two days. Naturally, I didn't finish it. Luckily, I had played Persona 2 and 3 to completion before, so I had a pretty good idea of how a Persona game plays out to begin with. This helped me 'solve' the problem by spending a fair amount of the review on how the core gameplay of 4 differed and/or improved on its predecessors.

That said, handheld games were generally the easiest to review when on a tight deadline, because many are designed to work well when played in bitesized chunks, so you can usually get a solid idea in fairly little time.
 

Guilion

♪El mariachi fennec quiere bailar♪
Messages
57
Can I sleep with you or can you present me to an ex-co-worker of yours that will sleep with me and give my games good coverage? :3

Actually make the good coverage optional.
 

Houseman

Zealot
Sanctuary legend
Messages
1,068
Chimpzy said:
A difficult question, because to this day I still don't have a clear idea of what Gamergate actually was. What was it about? Fuck if I know. That question seems to have about as many answer as there were people on either side of its fence. Was it a consumer revolt? Was it a movement against unethical collusion, and a lack of journalistic integrity and transparency in games media? Perhaps a culture war over cultural diversification, artistic recognition, and social criticism in video games? A right-wing backlash against progressivism? Was it about the social identity of gamers? No clear goals, nor motives.

All in all, a massive and confusing shitshow that made a lot of people very angry and/or hurt, and when it all comes down to it, changed little for the better and benefited no one (save maybe the big publishers). A low point in gaming history that will be remembered for the harassment, the doxxing and the death threats, and not for whatever good intentions and ideas were to be found on either side. And that, in my opinion, is probably the worst thing about it.
Were you a games journalist during 2014, or had you fallen out of it at that point?
 

Chimpzy

Adherent
Messages
67
Guilion said:
Can I sleep with you or can you present me to an ex-co-worker of yours that will sleep with me and give my games good coverage? :3

Actually make the good coverage optional.
Lemme see, a cute fennec fox who also knows how to play guitar? Ooof, so tempting. If I were still a journo tho, it would be a no, because that would be unprofessional. People with any degree of professionalism wouldn't, which includes everyone I worked with.

That's on both sides of the fence btw, both colleagues and our contacts within the industry. We did sometimes run into each other outside of work tho. Most of us lived and/or worked in Antwerp, which is not that big, and we hung out in many of the same places, so it was regularly "Oh hey, how are you doing?". Then some chit-chat, perhaps some bitching about our respective bosses. Regular bar talk. Things were cordial, since come monday, we'd have to work with each other and it's best not to piss off your professional contacts needlessly, but we weren't friends.

But I'm guessing what you actually want to know is my take on Zoe Quinn's romantic relationship with Kotaku journo Nathan Grayson. That's simple. Lines were crossed. It was grossly unprofessional, from both sides, and a black mark on their careers, regardless of what their motivations for entering the relationship were.

Aaaaaaanyway ... is your offer still on the table now that there's no possiblity for good coverage in it anymore?
Cuz there's plenty of sweet, kinky monkey lovin to be had.

Houseman said:
Were you a games journalist during 2014, or had you fallen out of it at that point?
No, I had quit the business a little under 2 years before. Pretty sure it wouldn't be much fun to work under those conditions, being obligated to report on it because it was big news, but knowing you'd very likely be met with hostility no matter which way you went about it. Like I mentioned before, confrontation pretty much comes with the job, but that doesn't mean I enjoy pissing people off.
 

Runic Rogue

Outlander
Messages
10
With regard to the gamergate question, what do you think about how the industry handled it? Do you think they addressed it as it warranted and it was doomed to explode like it did, or do you think they threw gas on a spark and made a blazing fire?

With regard to the field itself, do you think the state of journalism has deteriorated as the political machine demands constant information updates and coverages, or do you think it is doing as well as it always has?
 

Chimpzy

Adherent
Messages
67
Runic Rogue said:
With regard to the gamergate question, what do you think about how the industry handled it? Do you think they addressed it as it warranted and it was doomed to explode like it did, or do you think they threw gas on a spark and made a blazing fire?
Any that condemned the harassment and death threats were absolutely right to do so, although some could've done so more tactfully. It's possible things could have been mitigated if games media adopted and publicized some ethics policies requiring the disclosure of relationships. The GamerGate supports concerned with ethics and transparency would pretty much have no more reason to exist. I don't know though, it's just as likely that some would see such a move as pandering and capitulation, while others would think it nowhere near enough. Also, it most likely wouldn't do anything to stop the less pleasant elements on either side from continuing to vent and bicker.

Runic Rogue said:
With regard to the field itself, do you think the state of journalism has deteriorated as the political machine demands constant information updates and coverages, or do you think it is doing as well as it always has?
I think the overall quality of journalism has declined because of that demand for constant information updates and coverage, although I'm not really sure what this nebulous political machine has to do with it. It's more an unfortunate but logical effect of modern technology. The faster and easier access to information becomes, the faster and easier people will want and expect that information. The time journos have to do their job has gotten ever shorter over the last 2 decades or so.

And trust me, it's really, really, really hard for a journalist, especially freelancers, to get the news and publish it with the murderously quick deadlines of today, while still providing depth and nuance. In some cases, you might as well not bother anymore if you're only a mere hour later than the rest. No one will take your work (meaning you're not getting paid either), even if it's plain better. Because it's old news. Should've looked for the next big news instead. Happened to me a few times. Went the distance and did the digging, but got nothing for the effort. That's not really the kind of environment that incentivizes thoroughness.

It's oversimplified and far from the only reason, but yes, there has been a decline in quality.

That said, I think solid journalism is still being done. Like the Panama Papers, or perhaps the Harvey Weinstein case. Which probably involved many dozens if not hundreds of hours of unpaid work for those journalists. Regardless of what your stance is on either of those cases, it takes some serious dedication to put in that kind of effort knowing you may get not get anything out of it, maybe not even a thank you.
 

Chimpzy

Adherent
Messages
67
PsychedelicDiamond said:
Is there a way for me to get into gaming journalism despite never having seen a university from the inside?
Well, I didn't go to university (i do have a college degree, but not in journalism or any related field) and I got into journalism by basically doing it in my spare time, offer my work up. Get rejected, persevere anyway, and improve until someone said 'ok, you can write for us'. Things got easier after that, now that I've had 'established' myself. The game journo part came a few months later when the colleague who did the game pages for a men's magazine quit and they asked if I wanted to take over. So I did. Chief editor for the magazine liked the work, so he gave me the contact info for some of his peers at games magazines. Got into touch with them, showed off some work and a few of them said 'ok, I can use another guy'. That's pretty much it in a nutshell. Pretty much all of my colleagues also sort of just stumbled into it like that. That was a decade ago though.

How you'd go about it nowadays is something I honestly don't have an answer for. The whole writing and offering it up until someone takes you might still work, but I'm not sure of it. Also take into account that journalism is lots of hours for comparatively little pay with little job security, and that games journalism alone will probably not be enough to earn a living. Could work as a little something on the side in addition to a more stable job.

Or you could take the approach that Jim Sterling (who doesn't have a degree, iirc) took and take to Patreon and such. Ok, yeah, it'll probably take quite some time doing it in your spare time while you work another job, until you build enough of an audience to be able to support yourself doing game journalism full-time. Which may or may not ever happen.
 

Runic Rogue

Outlander
Messages
10
Chimpzy said:
Runic Rogue said:
With regard to the gamergate question, what do you think about how the industry handled it? Do you think they addressed it as it warranted and it was doomed to explode like it did, or do you think they threw gas on a spark and made a blazing fire?
Any that condemned the harassment and death threats were absolutely right to do so, although some could've done so more tactfully. It's possible things could have been mitigated if games media adopted and publicized some ethics policies requiring the disclosure of relationships. The GamerGate supports concerned with ethics and transparency would pretty much have no more reason to exist. I don't know though, it's just as likely that some would see such a move as pandering and capitulation, while others would think it nowhere near enough. Also, it most likely wouldn't do anything to stop the less pleasant elements on either side from continuing to vent and bicker.
You know, it is funny you mention that, as after the sites finally dd start updating policy and improving things, it was around the time the main engine of gamergate cooled and slowed. What remained was a reactionary skeleton crew responding to the media attempts to call up ghost of the boogieman by mocking and laughing at it, and calling it out for what it was. A shift from a consumer demand for ethical and professional reform, to a collective response to those trying to use the hashtag as a demonized shadow to blame things on.

Runic Rogue said:
With regard to the field itself, do you think the state of journalism has deteriorated as the political machine demands constant information updates and coverages, or do you think it is doing as well as it always has?
I think the overall quality of journalism has declined because of that demand for constant information updates and coverage, although I'm not really sure what this nebulous political machine has to do with it. It's more an unfortunate but logical effect of modern technology. The faster and easier access to information becomes, the faster and easier people will want and expect that information. The time journos have to do their job has gotten ever shorter over the last 2 decades or so.

And trust me, it's really, really, really hard for a journalist, especially freelancers, to get the news and publish it with the murderously quick deadlines of today, while still providing depth and nuance. In some cases, you might as well not bother anymore if you're only a mere hour later than the rest. No one will take your work (meaning you're not getting paid either), even if it's plain better. Because it's old news. Should've looked for the next big news instead. Happened to me a few times. Went the distance and did the digging, but got nothing for the effort. That's not really the kind of environment that incentivizes thoroughness.

It's oversimplified and far from the only reason, but yes, there has been a decline in quality.

That said, I think solid journalism is still being done. Like the Panama Papers, or perhaps the Harvey Weinstein case. Which probably involved many dozens if not hundreds of hours of unpaid work for those journalists. Regardless of what your stance is on either of those cases, it takes some serious dedication to put in that kind of effort knowing you may get not get anything out of it, maybe not even a thank you.
I refer to the political machine with how the news itself openly portrays a political bend (which way often depending on which one you look at), and with specific examples such as CNN in mind and the, frankly, blatant biases on display there in their reporting. Also the rise of the political discourse aspect of the news where stories are discussed more than reported on now (talking heads "debating" sort of thing)

As a continuation of the gamergate thing, what is your opinions on the sheer amount of people involved opposed to it that have later been outed for sexual predation or worse. Or the reveal of the gamesjournopros meet and discuss thing where journalists and editors of various competing publications discussed what stories to cover and how to cover them?
 

Chimpzy

Adherent
Messages
67
Runic Rogue said:
I refer to the political machine with how the news itself openly portrays a political bend (which way often depending on which one you look at), and with specific examples such as CNN in mind and the, frankly, blatant biases on display there in their reporting. Also the rise of the political discourse aspect of the news where stories are discussed more than reported on now (talking heads "debating" sort of thing)
Ah, bias. It’s not new. When it comes to politics and socio-economics topics (which are pretty much the same thing), media have always had their biases. They change and increase/decrease over time, but they’re always there. Thing is, most people tend to not notice them, because they’re biases they either personally agree with or topic they don’t particularly care about. It’s only when the bias on either side changes that it really starts getting noticed.

Although a possible reason for why news media appear more biased is the seemingly increased polarisation. You’re either entirely pro A, because if you aren’t, you must be entirely pro B. That’s exaggerated of course, but there is ostensibly an trend of shifting further towards the extremes, towards black or white. It’s especially apparent in the US, although not limited to it. And not just in news media, btw.

Oh, and the political discourse talking heads thing, yeah, don't like that either. If you want to do an opinion piece, do an opinion piece, clearly label it as such and don't mix it in with the regular news. Keep it to political talkshows. Right after the news, if you must, but still separate.

Runic Rogue said:
As a continuation of the gamergate thing, what is your opinions on the sheer amount of people involved opposed to it that have later been outed for sexual predation or worse.
You mean any that were opposed to the sexism and misogyny associated with pro-GamerGaters? I can be brief about them: assuming those people are guilty of those things, well, bit hypocritical, innit?

Runic Rogue said:
Or the reveal of the gamesjournopros meet and discuss thing where journalists and editors of various competing publications discussed what stories to cover and how to cover them?
Also not new. Journos have been meeting in that way pretty much since the dawn of the news press, although it’s usually limited to just discussion and not agreements. Journalists, whoever they work for, tend to stick together and don’t really see each other as competitors. The main difference is that it now happens in mailings lists and conference calls, rather than in a bar somewhere. From a journalistic ethics standpoint, it’s not right, but that won’t stop it from happening, to one degree or another.
 

Runic Rogue

Outlander
Messages
10
Chimpzy said:
Runic Rogue said:
I refer to the political machine with how the news itself openly portrays a political bend (which way often depending on which one you look at), and with specific examples such as CNN in mind and the, frankly, blatant biases on display there in their reporting. Also the rise of the political discourse aspect of the news where stories are discussed more than reported on now (talking heads "debating" sort of thing)
Ah, bias. It’s not new. When it comes to politics and socio-economics topics (which are pretty much the same thing), media have always had their biases. They change and increase/decrease over time, but they’re always there. Thing is, most people tend to not notice them, because they’re biases they either personally agree with or topic they don’t particularly care about. It’s only when the bias on either side changes that it really starts getting noticed.

Although a possible reason for why news media appear more biased is the seemingly increased polarisation. You’re either entirely pro A, because if you aren’t, you must be entirely pro B. That’s exaggerated of course, but there is ostensibly an trend of shifting further towards the extremes, towards black or white. It’s especially apparent in the US, although not limited to it. And not just in news media, btw.

Oh, and the political discourse talking heads thing, yeah, don't like that either. If you want to do an opinion piece, do an opinion piece, clearly label it as such and don't mix it in with the regular news. Keep it to political talkshows. Right after the news, if you must, but still separate.
Hmm, I see. You don't see an increase in amount of stories that are false or unfounded, or that the use of talking heads to push a conclusion as anything new or concerning? Or is it just seemingly more frequent due to the speed in which it is noticed and called out?

Runic Rogue said:
As a continuation of the gamergate thing, what is your opinions on the sheer amount of people involved opposed to it that have later been outed for sexual predation or worse.
You mean any that were opposed to the sexism and misogyny associated with pro-GamerGaters? I can be brief about them: assuming those people are guilty of those things, well, bit hypocritical, innit?
To say the least about it. But I was curious your take of the view that such people latched onto the demonization of gamergate as "misogynists and neckbeards" as a way to try to cover their own behavior in a similar manner as an anti-gay republican congressman would before being found together with a gay prostitute in a seedy bathroom, and how it undermined the validity of a lot of the reporting on the topic in whole considering they being the voices shaping the media narrative that was echoed by other media outlets, were likely accusing others of their own sins, so to speak.

Runic Rogue said:
Or the reveal of the gamesjournopros meet and discuss thing where journalists and editors of various competing publications discussed what stories to cover and how to cover them?
Also not new. Journos have been meeting in that way pretty much since the dawn of the news press, although it’s usually limited to just discussion and not agreements. Journalists, whoever they work for, tend to stick together and don’t really see each other as competitors. The main difference is that it now happens in mailings lists and conference calls, rather than in a bar somewhere. From a journalistic ethics standpoint, it’s not right, but that won’t stop it from happening, to one degree or another.
Do you see any problem with that when also tied with what w know about the rise of things like talking heads and promoting a bias, or with what we see with smaller examples like gamergate where the people discussing and helping deciding how the stories would go wind up being harassers, predators, or worse?

Also, thanks for the discussion. I genuinely find this interesting.
 

Chimpzy

Adherent
Messages
67
Runic Rogue said:
Hmm, I see. You don't see an increase in amount of stories that are false or unfounded, or that the use of talking heads to push a conclusion as anything new or concerning? Or is it just seemingly more frequent due to the speed in which it is noticed and called out?
I can think of several reasons why there may be an increase in false or unfounded stories. Some are probably based in bias, but also some that are not necessarily tied to any kind of political agenda.

The big one ties back into that ever-increasing need for news to be faster. As in, so fast it was already hard to find the time to properly fact-check sources in my time. It wasn’t uncommon for a press release to be published with just a quick rewrite and a single phone call to investigate its veracity. News is even faster now, so I wouldn’t be surprised if press releases or straight up rumors are often being published verbatim with no scrutiny at all. That urge to be the first, to have the scoop, has always been a part of news reporting, but in a sense you can say it has gotten so far that the obsession with breaking the news often ends up breaking the news reporting.

And if the source of the news is false, unfounded and/or biased to begin with, knowing the reporters don’t have the luxury of checking them (and yes, I’m sure sometimes also just plain don’t bother to), then I don’t think I need to tell you what will happen. Besides, fast news also makes it easier to redact mistakes (especially in online media). Just do a quick update with the new information. In theory, a journalist is obligated to rectify his mistakes with the same effort as the original article, but in theory this rule is only paid lip service. Because why spend time on yesterday’s news when there’s todays hot news?

They’ll be confident they’ll generally “get away” with it either (not correcting the mistake, I mean), because one of the things you quickly learn on the job is that the vast majority of news consumers will have completely forgotten the vast majority of news by the time the next big thing rolls around (which nowadays is a matter of days, if that). If that sounds kind of scummy, it kind of is. Fyi, there is one exception to the ‘quickly forgotten’ thing. Sports news. Can’t get that wrong. A major, major shitstorm from fucktons of people (among which, most importantly, are the suits up top) is guaranteed if you do.

The second that comes to mind is good old commercialism. To know what I mean, I’m gonna need to talk some history. You see, the roughly 1940 to 1980 period affectionately referred to as the Golden Age of Journalism is often seen as the baseline for how news has always worked, and the then espoused tenet of fair and objective reporting as the de facto historical standard. It wasn’t. It was an anomaly, a time where the conditions were just right for news media to prosper to where owning a newspaper was pretty much a license to print money. Advertising in the media was at an all time high and fair and balanced reporting attracted the most advertisers, so that’s what they did. Profits were high, so they could afford expensive stuff like investigative and foreign journalism to vary their portfolio alongside easier, cheaper news such as sports, entertainment and job listings.

Which worked fine for a time. Especially for privately owned newspapers, frequently headed by families with a history in journalism themselves, who more or less just wanted to enjoy a steady income. Growth was nice, but not necessary. These were the news media that were generally the most intent on being informative and objective. Fyi, in many democratic European countries, state-funded media also tended to be like that, because their survival was not dependent on advertising and their government subsidies were often not subject to the political whim of whoever was in power, but were determined and protected by (sometimes even constitutional) law. Neither entirely curbed biases, but still.

But eventually, limitations were met. News media grew more profitable because others failed, allowing the survivors to attract ever-larger audiences. But how could they acquire appreciably more consumers when they were the only game in town? And with the increasing public ownership of news media, growth mattered. Stockholders want to see their value of their holdings appreciate beyond the rate of inflation. Cutting expenses for news-gathering was one way to achieve that. If that didn’t work, media started employing more dubious methods. In trying to capture audience, their content was ever more sensational, opinionated, irresponsible, and mean. Whatever earns them more readers/viewers/clicks is fair game, even if it flies in the face of the views of the shareholders. So long as it proves profitable enough, that will be forgiven.

So, an increase in false or unfounded reporting, and indeed bias, exhibited by a particular news medium may not be a result of its political and socio-economic leanings at all, but simply a result of a tactic to bring in more audience. “Hey, there’s this controversial rumor going around. Don’t wait for confirmation, just put that shit frontpage. Opponent or proponent, people will come running anyway. Be sure to put down a clickbaity title”. Some may indeed skew the news out of political conviction, but I believe a significant amount of media do it because it sells. In other words, yellow journalism. The current political climate is honestly ripe for it and from the looks of it, it’s working like a charm.

I’m not saying these are THE cause, just possible causes (note the plural), although my insider experience makes me believe it’s more probable than possible. Whatever is happening in the news media right now is can’t simply be explained away by saying ‘It’s caused by bias’ and calling it a day. It’s much more complex than that, a likely result of numerous developments in the media landscape that have been going on for a long time, decades even. Some of these causes are political in nature, some of which are not. To the point that the more I think about it, the more I start feeling that any bias in media today is not entirely a root cause, but more a symptom.

Whether or not it is cause for concern is hard to determine. While overt bias has been more or less more subdued in past decades, there have been quite a few flare-ups, mostly during times of political turmoil and/or wartime. For example, I remember how quite a few people were talking down here about how quickly American news media of all persuasions hopped on the war bandwagon and started simply parotting the White House and Pentagon right after 9/11. At least, until many 180°’ed when it became clear that the promised victory was not going to be quick, easy or glorious. And then some older people would remark “Oh, it was the same during the Gulf War. And also that Monika Lewinsky thing”. Those always died down after some time when the climate settled and/or people got tired of hearing about and the news media started looking for some other big thing to report, returning to

Fyi, if you feel the news is biased now and would like to know why I said that is not new (aside from the things mentioned in the paragraph above), look into newspapers pre-1900. I mean, yikes, they sure wore their heart on their sleeve. Mind you, back then newspapers weren’t commonly read by the common people. They were by and large products by and for the elite, or subsidized if not owned by political parties, and their purpose was to serve these interests.
Tthen how did commoners come by their news? Well, they gossiped, sang songs and spread rumours. Any news from outside the direct area you lived in likely came by way of merchants and entertainers, i.e. people who regularly travelled. In some places, mostly larger towns and cities, there were also dedicated places where people would gather and exchange rumors and gossip, or just plain made stories up, like l’Arbre de Cracovie (Tree of Cracau) in pre-revolutionary Paris.
There wasn’t much difference between a newspaper and a political pamphlet back then. It also calls to mind the close relationship that exists today between the political class (left, right, pick any side) and the businessmen owners of the mainstream (and some not so mainstream) media groups, the latter of whom are friends and frequent contributors to the campaigns of the former.

In that respect, you could argue, admittedly in a twisted sort of way, that the current problems in news media aren’t problems at all or a decline from how news should be.

They are a return to form.

Runic Rogue said:
To say the least about it. But I was curious your take of the view that such people latched onto the demonization of gamergate as "misogynists and neckbeards" as a way to try to cover their own behavior in a similar manner as an anti-gay republican congressman would before being found together with a gay prostitute in a seedy bathroom, and how it undermined the validity of a lot of the reporting on the topic in whole considering they being the voices shaping the media narrative that was echoed by other media outlets, were likely accusing others of their own sins, so to speak.
I’m assuming you’re talking about that guy from NeoGAF whose name escapes me (only example I can think of right now)?

That is possible, but hard to prove without direct confirmation from the parties involved. Without, it’s conjecture. If true though, that makes them shitty people. Espousing a cause for shitty motivations usually does. Doesn’t make a good cause bad by default though, nor a bad cause good (or any worse, for that matter). That is one of the worse results I can see coming from this: that the actions of a few may be used to question the validity of all genuine reporting on sexual harassment (an ostensibly altruistic act), in a “if a couple are bad apples, who is to say they all aren’t?” It’s always a shame when a good cause is preempted by shitheels looking to abuse it for their own gain. That goes for the shitheels on the anti-GG side as well, throwing those with genuinely good intentions under the bus alongside the pro-GG actually sexist, misogynist and other ‘ist shitheels because fuck them #incel, #altright, #nazi or whatever dumb hashtag they preferred to slap on there (Not a fan of hashtags. Too often used to boil complicated issues down to a dumb, single-word catch phrase)

That’s beside those who would demonize the other side (pick whichever) regardless for no other reason than being the other side. Because you always get a few of those. Also shitheels.
Runic Rogue said:
Do you see any problem with that when also tied with what w know about the rise of things like talking heads and promoting a bias, or with what we see with smaller examples like gamergate where the people discussing and helping deciding how the stories would go wind up being harassers, predators, or worse?
All of the things discussed, whether in isolation or in combination, have potential for causing problems (or being a problem in and of itself). That’s the thing about journalism and its various aspects: it’s fueled by people interacting with other people. For all the best and the worst that comes with that and both being an inevitability. Not a pleasant fact of life.

Runic Rogue said:
Also, thanks for the discussion. I genuinely find this interesting.
Speaking of, assuming you intend to reply to this post, you should know I’ve got very busy days ahead. So keep in mind it will likely take a while before I can get back to you, since I like to take my sweet time writing these posts.

I’m gonna call it tho. Tired. Monkey needs his sleep, otherwise the electric eel will get him by the brainbanana.
 

Runic Rogue

Outlander
Messages
10
No worries about the time to get back. That is one of the main benefits of a forum after all.

But looking back at all discussed so far, what would you suggest as a solution of sorts, away from the decline in journalism back to pre1900's style, and more akin to that golden age that was seen as the ideal.
 

bluegate

Disciple
Sanctuary legend
Messages
292
Chimpzy said:
bluegate said:
What publications did you write for?

What games did you write about?

What did you enjoy writing about the most?

Would you like a banana?
Most fun thing to write about. Honestly? Bad games. And I don't mean a game I don't like, but real bottom of the barrel stuff.

To quote Anton Ego from Ratatouille: "We thrive on negative criticism, which is fun to write and to read."

The second part of that sentence is definitely true. As a writer, it's really enjoyable to hammer down on a shitty game and to find all kinds of creative ways of describing its badness. Especially when it was already widely established that a game is crap before reviews were in order, because then you can really go to town with little risk of pissing off publishers or the readership. People getting butthurt over stuff you wrote pretty much is part of the job, but that doesn't make it fun to deal with. Knowing you wouldn't have to honestly felt nice. Oh, they'd grumble, but only a little, because they knew it's a stinker.

Bananas are not a question, they are the answer. So, YES! Always.
I very much dislike it when something like this happens, not saying that you were guilty of this, but I have often seen that lead to just plain bandwagon hating rather than actual reviewing of the game.

Thanks for answering in the detailed manner that you did
 
Top