Chimpzy
Adherent
- Messages
- 67
As I mentioned before, good old-school journalism with thorough research and all those bells and whistles is still being done. But to put it bluntly, there’s little reward in it anymore. You cannot reasonably expect someone to work dozens or hundreds of hours without making a decent living from it, especially when that may be dangerous, depending on where that journalist lives. It’s not realistic.Runic Rogue said: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.
But there is pretty much no chance of the Golden Age conditions that allowed that kind of hard and expensive journalism to prosper in the first place to return. The world is a whole new beast. Aside from the differences in how news media are being run, the advent of the internet has completely changed how media are being made and consumed. In a sense, this created a new Golden Age, since journalism is more democratic than ever. Modern media have made it possible for anyone to publish news and opened up new avenues to make a living off it.
So, on a basic level, I think that if the big (more traditional) news media themselves won’t back old-school Golden Age style journalism anymore, then perhaps the consumer can instead. You can’t make bias go away. Nor shoddy sensationalism. But you can support the people that do good work. Give them views, likes, subscribes, whatever. If more direct financial backing like a Patreon is an option, do that maybe. Doesn’t need to be much, every little bit helps.
It’s not an ideal solution. In fact, it’s not a solution at all, because it doesn’t resolve any of the underlying issues. And that’s beside the fact that those with political agendas can use the exact same method to push their views. But think of it as keeping the flame lit.
Yes, that’s the big stumbling block. At the end of the day, journalists are people and there is a strong allure in the safety of conformity, and games journalism is probably where I felt its effect the most. A desire to not affront people: your readers/viewers, your journalist peers, your businessmen bosses (and by extension the publishers and advertisers they deal with).bluegate said: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
It was never outright spoken, just hinted at, but there was definitely pressure from the company top (i.e. the big wigs) to follow the majority opinion for a review, to not rock the boat too much. Or getting a call from a publisher PR rep asking why we rated game x lower than average and wanting to know our reasons (or, you know, they could read the review). Or messages from readers complaining how we rated game x too low, or too high, although the reasoning behind those complaints was sometimes pretty out there, so that was kind of fun.
So, you then either stand your ground and deal with the inevitable replies, or you start playing it safe and follow. Think of the latter as the Dark Side of the Force: quicker, easier, more seductive. It might seem like a small thing and part of the job to resist it, but given time and frequency, it becomes tempting.