"We're" guilty of nothing. It doesnt matter if as consumers we're PR mouthpieces or anti-establishment arseholes, we have no responsibility to anyone other then ourselves. The same isnt true of games journalists (admittedly as this thread has highlighted the line between consumer, pr spokesperson and games journalist is often hazy). Consumers who are excited about games arent suddenly going to stop buying games as soon as theyre available, which means publishers arent going to change their focus on day one and pre-order incentives. To think otherwise is naieve at best.
Touché. But I don't think we're without responsibility entirely. I mean, look at what folks like us are doing right now in this thread and on gaming sites. We must feel some obligation to talk about this.
However there certainly is room for more of a spectrum in games journalism, from the "up to the minute" mainline news sites (who have no choice but to at least sit on PR's bed - even if they dont get under the covers) to a more critical, more well researched and more ethical section of games journalism. However there is a price to be paid for the latter, good writing takes longer than rehashing press releases and its likely going to mean reduced access to previews and review copies. Some sites simply might not be able to survive on the reduced general traffic this will result on, others clearly can (I think Rock, Paper, Shotgun shows this and serves as a good template for a middle ground).
You're absolutely right. It's hard to strike that balance. Clearly the more commercial sites are going to be more successful. That's the nature of the beast in any industry. And many consumerist outlets (take Wired or Rolling Stone, for example) find ways to do both serious journalism and crass commercialism in a single issue. But in my experience, those outlets do a much more thorough job of separating the journalism from the marketing.
The proliferation and importance of review writing, however, is unique to games journalism. Its nearest analog is in film criticism. But since film critics don't deal with an actual "product" in the same way, it's easier for them to keep their distance. Game critics, therefore, need to be doubly on their guard IMO, and they need to have stricter ethical guidelines for how they interact with PR reps, publishing folks, promotional material, etc. It's a unique position in journalism, and the bulk of it falls to inexperienced, underpaid, young people with little-to-no guidance or accountability. Publishers see all of that as a tremendous opportunity to fill a vacuum of guidance. This IS NOT about bribes or corruption, but simply about the unique position of most game review writers (many of whose reviews subsequently appear on Metacritic and greatly affect consumer and business decisions).
And I think
the unspoken "hierarchy" of gaming sites and journalists is very much an issue in all of this. The fact that some journalists are jumping to Wainwright's defense is probably out of sympathy and recognition. They have all been there at some point in their careers. They've all been some young, inexperienced games writer working without much guidance. They all know how easy it can be not to recognize when you've made a bad decision because publishers will do everything they can to influence your decisions. Without the protection of a big site behind you and very experienced friends, it's very easy to do something stupid without realizing it.
Publishers aren't stupid. They know they have the greatest ability to influence journalists who have the least experience, who are the least connected, and who work at the smallest sites (but who still influence consumer opinion through sites like Metacritic). Without even doing the research, it's a safe bet to assume that PR/publisher influence is most successful at that level. I'm not saying this is the position that Wainwright is in. And I'm certainly not defending her. But there are hundreds of writers who are in that position. And, unfortunately, they're the ones who are least likely to be affected by any "grass roots" calls for change by readers.
All we can hope is that more established journalists stop being defensive and use this as an opportunity to turn the microscope on the journalism side of the industry
as a whole, and that they stop assuming we're attacking them or out for blood. I mean, imagine that Kotaku (you listening, Stephen?) did a story on these small sites and these lesser known journalists? What might change if this part of the industry were suddenly opened up to readers' gazes? Would publishers back off? Would practices change? And, wait for it, might we start seeing industry-wide standards? A *gasp* writer's
union?
I don't know. But it seems worth it to keep pushing in order to see what happens.