Jeff Gerstmann’s article Maybe We Should Start Issuing More Press Releases and Chris Scullion of Official Nintendo Magazine’s reply highlights a persistent concern within games journalism: objectivity and the perceived lack there of.    Video games are part of the enthusiast press and like Cat Fancy or 4-Wheeler; coverage is marketed towards a specific group interested in the subject matter.  In fact, the audience’s passion for the material is stronger than that of general public’s because the average person wouldn’t devote as much time or money following the news on a single activity.   For them, the entertainment section of USA Today is enough.   But, serious hobbyists need to know more and so the enthusiast press was born.  

Established members of the games press often don’t like to refer to themselves as “journalists”.   Sometimes they conclude that what they do is different than what someone who works for the Washington Post does in reporting the news from the war in Afghanistan or what the White House is proposing on any given piece of legislation.   But, how different is it really?   Games publications receive press notices every day from game makers, they are invited to game events by studios, and schedule interviews with game representatives who repeat the official mantra of their company.   Writers for Newsweek or the New York Times read government authorized press releases, they attend Pentagon and White House press briefings, and schedule interviews with administrators who repeat the party’s official position on the story.   Critics might call it lazy journalism, but it’s also how the majority of what we see and read reaches us.   This is probably the reason why investigative journalism, as rare and unpredictable as it is, receives such merit when it breaks a story.   Patrick Klepek’s Activision-Bungie story may have just been having a few friends in the right places, but it was enough to get the gaming community buzzing for a couple of days.     

The issue with the game press and objectivity stems from the relationships between the writers, editors, publishers and the companies who make games.   It comes down to two key elements: access and advertising.   Sites like Giant Bomb and magazines like Official Nintendo Magazine require access granted by game publishers.   If Square-Enix doesn’t want to talk to Brad, then Giant Bomb doesn’t get to cover whatever’s new about their latest game.   Now, it is probably in their best interest to allow Brad access, because every article he writes about Final Fantasy XIII is less money they have to spend on advertising, but how much they say to him, how much actual “news” is provided, can vary based on the relationships between Giant Bomb and Square-Enix.  There are always lingering questions regarding the care needed to maintain these positive relationships.   We don’t usually see hard interviews challenging the corporate representative for decisions made in a game’s creation.   Follow-up reports and counterpoints are rare even in the mainstream press, and so negligence in the enthusiast press goes unquestioned.   When a site relies on having access to supply their viewers with news, upsetting those connections by being “too tough” endangers their future ability to do business.   So readers are sometimes left with doubts.  

The second element is advertising.   Anyone who regularly visits Giant Bomb is probably aware of the incident at Gamespot which led to Jeff Gerstmann leaving the website.   What it comes down to is “don’t bite the hand that feeds you.”   Within the enthusiast press, the majority of the advertising revenue received by websites and magazines is related to the subject matter they cover.   A quick perusal of Import Tuner Magazine will reveal not only coverage of the latest cars and after-market parts, but advertisements for those cars and parts. The same is true in the video games press.   1Up.com reviews Mass Effect 2 and GameVideos.com (a 1Up site) inserts ads for Mass Effect 2 before each video they upload to visitors.   Logically, if 1Up wants to receive EA’s advertising dollars, it shouldn’t be overly critical of any of their games.   If EA sells a lot of games thanks to good press from 1Up, then they will continue to advertise on their site.   And, if EA feels that any of their products have suffered due to negativity present in 1Up’s reporting, then they will scale back the amount of money they direct though their advertising department.   Of course, every big game company always has a new game on the horizon, so the balance of give and take can be delicate.   And, most editors will tell readers that they receive no pressure from their sales divisions, but doubts sometimes remain.  

There is a third element regarding objectivity which appears to be unique among the video game enthusiast press.   That is occupational advancement and the friendships forged between journalists and game makers.   I don’t know how many people go from writing about ’s Detroit's latest automobiles to designing the next year’s models, but it seems to happen a lot in the games industry. Alex Navarro went to Harmonix, Jeff Green went to EA, Luke Smith went to Bungie, Shane Bettenhausen went to Ignition, and David Ellis went to Microsoft’s 343 Industries, and so on and so forth… It wouldn’t be out of line to see games journalism as just a stepping stone to greater opportunities in video game creation, and, so an enterprising young reporter might due well to temper his passions and look to the future when writing difficult stories.    Besides, do you really want your buddy who you used to eat lunch with reading a post on your website describing his latest project as lackluster and mediocre?  That’s going to make future meetings awkward.

These are just a few of the problems that face game journalists and the audience’s perception of their trustworthiness. “It’s not personal, it’s business” is an adage that works in theory, but how difficult is it to maintain that separation when dealing with friends?   And, what happens when it is all about the business of positive coverage equaling greater advertising revenue?   I’m not convinced that any news agency that relies on their subject to supply them with access can be truly objective because of that dependency.   If Capcom invites a writer to on their dime and the reporter accepts, how much influence has Capcom applied to shaping their impressions?   If the journalist doesn’t accept, then they might not be able to go, and so someone else gets that story.   Viewers visit the website with the story and greater traffic means more money in the end.   How much is integrity worth if it ultimately jeopardizes your ability to work?  

I was in a community theater show recently and these two lines stood out for me. The play is "Inherit the Wind", 
 
Prosecuting Attorney: Colonel Brady. It grieves me to read reporting that is so... biased.
Baltimore Herald writer: E.K. Hornbeck. I'm no reporter, Colonel. I'm a critic.
 
As long as publishers, developers, friends and lovers understand this... I'm good.

This thread popped up on my Google Alerts, so I thought I'd chime in.  
 
Truly, the enthusiast press will never completely be able to shake the perception that they're in bed with publishers because, at the end of the day, everyone in that circle is beholden to access to remain competitive. What's great about personalized sites like Giant Bomb, Twitter accounts, podcasts, Facebook pages and all the other ways you can connect with writers is being able to establish a personal connection with a writer you enjoy. If you trust their work, if you trust their writing, that's ultimately more important, right?
 
There's also the issue of writer vs. journalist. I'd argue most game writers aren't and don't want to be reporters. I consider that my trade, but not everyone should be held to that standard. 
 
I also agree the amount of writers who have become part of the development community is troubling, but it's not a conspiracy theory: there's just not much money in writing.

Lucidly written.  
 
This issue complexifies when you think about the consumer side, and how that side is perceived.  Many of us may appreciate correspondent integrity, but we also want to know more about the games being covered. I don't think I'm the only person who, at least through years of consuming games coverage, winds up not trusting most of the coverage until the game is actually out.  I learned early on that a lot of the previews were, as a rule, completely uncritical, sounding almost like advertisements.  It made me focus on any hints that the correspondent gave, subtle clues as to potential problems, using phrases like "it hasn't been decided yet," "they only showed us" a certain portion, "it remains to be seen," and all these other pregnant phrases that are warnings sent by someone with a bit of integrity that maybe you should wait a while to hear more about it in the review.
 
It's the review, though, that crosses some sort of line.  It's no longer about the potential product, it's about what's released, and when that change occurs, the integrity matters a lot more.  It's stumbling like this that makes me quit reading reviewers, if it goes too far.  And that means in either direction, too, as many reviewers will get so full of themselves and their ability to trash games that have no commercial pressure that they will use it as a chance to try out a comedy routine, helping no one actually understand what the game has going for it.  
 
One review that's burned into my brain is something I read for KOTOR 2, which was unequivocal in its praise.  Playing the actual game made me realize how strung-together many parts were, how full of bugs it still was.  When I bring this up, people often talk about the state of the release at the time and it was out of their hands, but to me the real problem was in how some people chose to cover the game. 
 
What's important to remember is that if you rely on one site for your information, you're putting yourself at risk of being misled.  The best practice, if you're trying to learn more about a product before you buy it, is to consult multiple, diverse sources.  That includes trying out the smaller sites that the big game companies will have no time and no interest in courting.  Sometimes those sites will be willing to step out of line and actually be more forthcoming about a game's problems. This could mean that they're simply naive, or it could mean that they know exactly what they're doing but are putting the information ahead of the prospect of pleasing some distant company.  Then again, smaller sites have less staying power, so you have to watch out for sycophants.  Those tend to be easy to spot, though, when not couched in the bells and whistles of a bigger site.
 
 The example Jeff cites is from a mag with Nintendo as its primary sponsor, so it's pretty obvious how to take it, at least for those of us with some experience. Kids may not manage to parse what they're doing, though, which makes that promotion kind of rotten.  
 
It takes some work, but after a while it's a lot easier to figure out who tends to lie or exaggerate to save their own hides.  The real devil lies in the subtle manipulations, but that's true for any type of journalism. 
 
And yeah, to me, it's journalism.  Even if they don't pretend to hold themselves to the standards expected of the mainstream news, I like to think that the idea of citizens finding out stuff about things and telling everyone is journalism no matter what you happen to be talking about. 

...What's important to remember is that if you rely on one site for your information, you're putting yourself at risk of being mislead.  The best practice, if you're trying to learn more about a product before you buy it, is to consult multiple, diverse sources...

"When Capcom holds their summit in Hawaii, even if a reporter made it there at their own expense, doesn't the location itself create a favorable atmosphere for all news coverage which is then conveyed to the readers?  Placing game journalists in a good mood might put them in a better mood as they write and broadcast their impressions of a game.  And season professionals might be fully aware of this but I don't believe that is makes them any less susceptible to the desired benefits.  "

"...complexifies..."

" ....  Many developers often outsource their PR, or have it done through their publishers, so they wind up being a victim in a sense, getting their name attached to a bad story about a big company trying to push around an entertainment news outlet, whether or not they knew anything about their tactics. "

" @ThatFrood:@PenguinDust:  It dates back to the 1800's, at least :)    Normalcy, now that has an embiggening etymology. "

" @ThatFrood: Is that a passive-aggressive way of suggesting English shouldn't have synonyms? "

" @ThatFrood: see above. English actually has quite a few words that feel redundant, but I like being able to vary words from time to time even if they, in the context I use them, pretty much mean the same thing.  Sometimes it's less about meaning and more about the sound.  I've been learning a language that basically has one word for everything, and adopted words for the words they never bothered to create, and it can feel pretty stifling at times. "

Who gives a a shit its enthusiast press after all.

The sentiments I agree with are multiple sources and sticking with people whose opinions you value. 
 
Great comments, from a lot of people also Cromulent....

I believe "yes." Just ignore all names and go into the game with no pre-rendered opinions, and you're fine.

I really do not think that non-objective reporting is only seen in enthusiast press.  If you read any article in so called main-stream or "non-biased" sources like CNN, TIME, USA today, etc...there is always a slant.  These outlets always have their take, whether that is by their interpretation of the data, or what they decided to include/not include in a particular story.  I think the reason these outlets are so popular is that they have been able to contextualize complicated issues into digestible stories.  If you want a totally objective stance, it would be pretty dull--something like a fact sheet, without any context.  This type of "reporting" would probably only have limited value to a select groups of people.  While we would like to think that our news outlets are non-biased, if you read articles on topics you happen to know well, a lot of times you can see inaccuracies and biases in the story.  I remember reading  a story in Newsweek several years ago about the launch of the PS2, and it mentioned that the N64 was released at $250.  As many of you know, the N64 was initially announced at $250, but was released at $199.  While this isn't a "biased" fact, it shows how even reputable publication have factual errors that only an "expert" would know.  Made me wonder if the facts on topics I didn't know very well had inaccuracies as well (most likely).   
 
As for the enthusiast press being friends with game developers/PR/publishers...that isn't unique to the gaming press.  The Obama administration has been especially vocal in "banning" or calling people who they don't like or disagree with "out" on topics.  Fact is that if you work in a relatively small industry, you will tend to see/meet the same people over and over again.  It would be hard not to develop any friendships.  The important thing is to understand how these relationships might influence you and try to be transparent about things.  It's called professionalism.  

" @ThatFrood: I agree with that outlook, but I don't think I do such things very often. I consider myself an essayist of sorts, even if I don't get paid for it, and if I have to use a term again to make sure the sentence is clear, I try to use a different word.  But I tend not to do it in the same sentence, and I just use a pronoun if it's clear.  The specific example you give me could differentiate between the meanings of the different terms.  I get where you're coming from; often amateur essayists fill up their sentences to meet some hallucinatory rhetorical ideal, but without having read the essay you're quoting I don't know if they really did mean those three terms (which if used properly don't mean the same things) or if they were padding the essay out.  I personally would never use those three words as if they were the same thing.  Candide had optimism as a subjective reflection of the world as the best of all possible worlds, and that could be applied to a particular definition of idealism, strictly talking about the world being ideal, although idealism in general can refer to any sort of thinking which rigidly follows a philosophy that, according to the observer applying the term at least, lies within a realm of ideas and not so much in concrete reality (which may not always fit the particular ideal).  Such idealists may not necessarily regard things as the best of all possible worlds as Voltaire's protagonist did, but may still be considered idealists.  The point may seem fine, but it covers different ground.  Naivite feels more strictly subjective though, and seems less to do with a particular ideology, and more to do with a judgment based on the person's behavior as being less optimized for the real world.  They're all aimed at a similar target, Candide and his worldview (which I think was espoused by thinkers like Leibniz), but the differences could be vast if properly backed up.    Or, they could all be pretty much the same thing in the mind of the writer, though that's impossible to see into for sure. "

edit: oh, and please don't take this as any sort of criticism directed at you. I just got a bit worked up on the subject! I'm pretty sure we're in agreement. "

Yeah there was essentially two enthusiast press that I considered reporters, David Ellis and Patrick Klepek. Ellis has a comfortable job at 343 now.
 
I wish GB would devote more time to breaking stories. My guess is that they have more access and connections than just about anyone else in that sector.