Examples of Corruption in Games Journalism

I just want to know some examples of it. There is all this talk but no concrete fact. Give me(us) some facts.

So I started this thread 6 days ago and the best we can do is @jeff talking about the shady things that used to go down in the UK more than a decade ago. Everything else has fallen under the conspiracy theory rabbit hole. No one is really mentioning companies bribing youtubers for coverage but they are more than willing to talk about some half-baked theory about an example of corruption that can easily be explained with rational thought.

I am informed by an industry man of the time that the colecovision makers/producers, CBS?, had a magazine do a whole bunch of reviews for games that hadn't even been made yet. Then the crash happened. I'm sure CBS is a different place now.

I don't follow this shit, but I see stuff posted on various forums I frequent from time to time. Looks like a lot of cherrypicking evidence and drawing dubious conclusions from the little I've seen. Not unlike most crazed conspiracy theories that flourish on the internet.

I once got a free Sonic Yo Yo when I was a child and told everyone in the school yard how awesome sega were and that they should all buy Sonic 3.

Here is a report on a GameJournosPros e-mail thread in which Destructoid boss Yanier Gonzalez, aka Niero, is seen to be taking advice from journalists outside of his company on whether he should fire staff writer Allistar Pinsof. The corruption seen here is collusion and blacklisting of a former employee. It's sad to see many familiar games journalism names interfering with another site by actively encouraging the firing of a writer on a secret mailing list. That report is pretty long, but I encourage people who are genuinely curious about how a lot of games journalists behave to read it and make their own minds up.

Here's a list of ethical concerns in the game industry that don't involve the Patreons of indie developers making free games.

Once, a man named Joof Jarstmunn was forced out of his job because an ad agency exerted its financial influence over his digital publication when he covered the game they were marketing using his honest opinion. I wonder whatever happened to that guy, and what his thoughts on this ordeal might be.

I think its paramount when looking at game reviews and reviewers (especially when it comes to youtubers etc.) to have a good idea of that reviewers practices and how they deal with advertising etc. its part of the reason why i like giant bomb as they are extremely open to whats going on. a couple of youtubers (like the completionist ) have made videos clearly stating how they deal with that stuff and i think thats a good start.

Outside of Jeff being fired (which you could argue is more suits panicking than outright corruption), there's no proven case of corruption in the games media. None. What you have are concerns about the media and devs/publishers being too close, and companies having too much leverage because they control access to their games. But that's a problem every part of the entertainment media has (those who cover movies especially), and it's been like that since forever without much of anything being proven. So, itsfuckingnothing.gif is the conclusion, more or less.

And this is after this whole movement has been trying to dig up dirt for a couple of months now. They haven't found shit outside of some mail list no one outside of GG cares about. If you want to dig up some real shady shit, go to Youtube and start looking into the various deals that's going on there.

Another example that is the story about the Australian, EA owned studio Firemonkeys forum was hacked and 40,000 user account details were stolen. It was not disclosed by EA. Eventually Kotaku Australia were contacted and the story came out. However, the whistle-blower initially contacted another prominent Australian gaming site and that site chose to suppress the story due to personal ties with EA employees. Suppressing a story that is of clear public interest like that due to personal links is of course a clear example of corruption.

You fail to mention that the staff writer in question broke the code of journalistic ethics by unnecessarily outing a transwoman, which had the potential to cause her great harm.

Here's a great response to that blog by Scott Nichols.

@juno500: That doesn't make any difference. Two wrongs don't make a right.

@exfate: He committed a serious ethical breach. It is absolutely fair for journalists to decide not to work with somebody who committed a serious ethical breach.

but it speaks to their integrity. if someone i know who was not ethically or moral sound gave me information I probably would not use it either.

But that's not corruption. You might think it's shady, but it has nothing to do with corruption. Also, I don't really see what's so wrong about what was done in this case.

If you want to know corruption, look no further than Jeff Gerstmann... (Play music)

Jeff Gerstmann has been seen on multiple occasions mingling with many game developers including John Vignocchi. Jeff has even mentioned on multiple occasions partyingWITH Vignocchi himself. He even appears on Jeff's video game website known as "Giant Bomb" as a loading icon. Can their truly be no biased opinions from Gerstmann about hot new titles like Disney Infinity and Tron: Evolution?

Can we really trust what Jeff Gerstmann has to say about this man? Can we trust him with our children?

Enter David Lang or what many describe as "The Lang Zone". Anonymous sources have indicated that David Lang and Jeff Gerstmann have been seen "enjoying each others company". This damning evidence is a prime example of why we must get rid of Jeff Gerstmann.

Jeff Gerstmann is a menace. Gerstmann wants you to spend money on video games like "Divekick" and "Killer Instinct: Season 2" for his own gain. Jeff Gerstmann wants to see the world burn. We cannot empower this man any longer, Jeff Gerstmann must be removed.

VOTE YES TO IMPEACH GERSTMANN...

I believe I've made a solid point here.

I don't really see any sign of "collusion" here. His boss asked other people for advice on how do deal with this situation, that's not an uncommon thing to do.

Honestly at this point I'm wondering if some people think journos talking to each other on Twitter is proof of collusion.

Yeah, I really don't get the "secret mailing list" thing. It's just a bunch of journalists talking to each other in private. What's wrong with that? Not everything some journalists does has to be open for everyone else to see. I talk to collegues of mine all the time, even if they (*gasp*) work for a different company, do I have to disclose this now?

Honestly, this is just an extremly thin straw some GGs are trying to cling onto

@juno500: You wondering about the communication between theoretical journalists indicates to me that you're corrupt as all get-out. The trail never ends.

I fail to see how anyone can honestly read that thread and not see collusion. Editorial decisions, which include whether a news report is ethical and whether to fire a journalist over any such ethical concerns, should not be discussed with competing outlets in private, ever.

@sackmanjones: I'm confused that is clearly Dave Lang and Dr. Tracksuit in that picture.

The point of the mailing list is that a group of people decides and dictates what will be covered by them. Either promoting a game/person or ignoring a game/person. At some point individuals stop thinking by themselves to figure out their own opinion. This is all very evident with the treatment Anita gets from the press. Nobody ever looks past her obvious faults.

So when looking for advice on something that I'm concerned about I should do that in an open forum?

@sackmanjones: It was so much fun to read this out loud with the "political attack ad" voice.

@mikey87144: Destructoid had an entire editorial staff to discuss this issue amongst themselves. Second to that, they can take outside advice from legal professionals and other third parties such as professional bodies that are not employees of competing publications.

I think it's a shame that the definition of "corruption" has been stretched so much throughout all of this that is cheapens more serious examples that are much less frequent. Similarly I hate when people over-use the word "scam."

I feel like everyone's totally missing the point of that Destructoid thing. His firing isn't what's unethical, they were well within their rights to do so. Blacklisting him is illegal though. Telling other media outlets not to talk to him is unethical.

I don't give a shit about the goals of Gamer Gate or ethics in the gaming press, but regardless of what anybody says I think that's a pretty damn good example of corruption.

If a bunch of Biologists from competing universities field got together in a private conference to exchange ideas about current and future research, is that collusion?

@juno500 said:

What if there was a biologist that made a discovery, and he told everybody about it. Then his university had to fire him because the fallout of his discovery made them look really bad. Then what if they went and told all the other universities not to talk to him, and that made it impossible for the biologist to get a new job. What if there was a law against that?

Would you care to show how what happened in the GJP group is illegal?

I don't get it, does research equate to firing and blacklisting a person in this terrible analogy?

It depends entirely on what is discussed and in what context. Collusion is defined by the specifics of the conversation, not simply by the act of talking privately. In that way, GameJournoPros is not inherently intended for collusion--though nobody ever said it was The discussion I brought up however, is a clear example of collusion, which is a form of corruption.

This is taken directly from the article.

"Wrongful combinations against workers.—If two or more persons shall agree, conspire, combine or confederate together for the purpose of preventing any person from procuring work in any firm or corporation, or to cause the discharge of any person from work in such firm or corporation; or if any person shall verbally or by written or printed communication, threaten any injury to life, property or business of any person for the purpose of procuring the discharge of any worker in any firm or corporation, or to prevent any person from procuring work in such firm or corporation, such persons so combining shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor of the first degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082 or s.775.083."

The best known example of corruption in games journalism is pretty much the origin story of this very site. In 2007, Jeff Gerstmann, then working for GameSpot, gave a mediocre review to some AAA game, upsetting its AAA publisher and GameSpot. Jeff was then fired/resigned from GameSpot and he went on to create this site, Giant Bomb.

Good video that touches on some of the issues: LINK

I don't think anyone in the games journalist/press should be working in the PR/Advertising side and the rest of the press should be seeking those whom do and tell us about it.

Robert Florence leaving Eurogamer

http://www.forbes.com/sites/erikkain/2012/10/25/video-game-journalist-robert-florence-leaves-eurogamer-after-libel-complaints/

Follow up article with other questionable cases

http://www.forbes.com/sites/erikkain/2012/10/26/all-the-pretty-doritos-how-video-game-journalism-went-off-the-rails/

Review copies of Shadow of Mordor in return for positive reviews and Youtube videos or streamed content.

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/videos/view/jimquisition/9782-Shadow-of-Mordors-Promotion-Deals-with-Plaid-Social

Undisclosed paid promotions on Youtube.

http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2014/jan/21/microsoft-xbox-one-youtube-stealth-marketing-outrage

Here's the thing: As Scott Nichols argued in the link I put up earlier, the author seeking work already made his ethical breach public. He was the one who outed a transwoman, a serious ethical breach. This was already public info. This was not editors sharing private information, this was editors reminding people of information that was already public. To quote Nichols directly:

"The second GameJournoPros involvement was when North posted in the group that Pinsof was trying to contact editors for work again. If that linked article had any commitment to honesty, it would have also shown that past the joke responses to North were responses that they already weren't planning to work with him due to his prior irresponsible ethical breach, or people saying they forgot about that situation and thanking for the heads up about a freelancer of questionable ethics. One of the other functions that the group serves is for editors to share with other editors which freelancers are good/bad to work with. This is not conspiring either. It was never the group coming together saying "nobody hire this guy" it was bunch of individual editors saying "Oh god, him again? I wasn't going to hire that guy anyway because of how he conducted himself previously." But to your question, no, I do not think it is a problem for the group to be used to inform editors of writers who have low ethical standards in their writing. He blacklisted himself through his actions, not because the group conspired to make him some untouchable writer."

Basically, Pinsof couldn't find work NOT due to a conspiracy, he couldn't find work because his own breach of ethics were already known.

@juno500: Personally I disagree that his actions were entirely without integrity. I don't know what the right thing to do in that situation is, but I can tell you that I don't think it's right to allow people to donate to a campaign you advertised after you know its a farce (even if it's a farce for the best of intentions). Regardless of that disagreement we have, the fact that they consulted competing outlets about his employment, and after his termination asked those competing outlets not to speak to him when he contacted them, clearly violates the law I quoted, regardless of whether they intended to work with him or not. You don't have to convince other outlets not to work with him for it to violate the law, only ask them not to.

I guess I don't get all this. If you don't believe there are some favoritism or shady dealing in an reviewing industry you.'re crazy. In a way I view it like the news, some lean right some lean left. Its best to know which way your favorite review leans, ie knowing Jeff hates red died, is good to know. I still loved that game, he has much more love for pinball than I do too.

I'm starting new thread, "do you buy games cause of reviews?"

Obviously, Jeff Gerstmann's firing from Gamespot years ago was an example of corruption(which was seemingly rectified to his satisfaction). Though, we'd likley be fooling ourselves to think that highly-publicized example is the only time an advertiser ever successfully influenced a gaming outlet.

Really, the advertising angle of the gaming enthusiast press has always been a challenging issue, as I think many would attest to. Though, a lot of these examples have less to do with willful corruption than potentially detrimental influence. I think the ethics of "sponsored" posts are questionable. And when a site is plastered with huge banner ads and even video ads on their site above a glowing review, it raises understandable concerns. Timed exclusives for reviews and blacklisting are also potential issues which reveal the tough spot many outlets are in to keep up with publisher-favored outlets.

I'd consider "official" gaming magazines to have been an example of corruption to some extent. For a lot of people while growing up, stuff like "Nintendo Power" or "Official PlayStation Monthly" were hugely popular and their main source for gaming news, and these were -official- sources. I even loved these magazines, and looking back, it's so obvious how much they were designed around promoting the official products and guiding you toward the biggest new games. You'd open up EGM and find a full ad for the same game reviewed on the page next to it. The official magazines got favorable treatment and became almost necessary purchases to keep up on the latest and greatest in gaming. Unfortunately, so much of it was hype, hype, and more hype.

Now we've still got Game Informer, and that's part of GameStop's promotional wing. You think they'd sell it in stores if it wasn't driving more sales to them? Sites at least have some genuine autonomy to decide for themselves, but stuff like Game Informer couldn't survive if they were too critical of games. They wouldn't get exclusives and they certainly wouldn't be sold on every GameStop shelf. That doesn't mean every review in them is necessarily corrupt somehow, but it does raise concerns which should be taken into account when reading it.

I've heard a decent number of people say "games journalism" was better when it was simpler back in the 90s, and that couldn't be further from the truth. I may have enjoyed it back then, but that's because I didn't know better. The current gaming enthusiast press is so far better than what existed back then. All the top sources were official, and I doubt a Nintendo Power reviewer could keep their job if they didn't like a Mario game enough. Just think about how often these sources portrayed their coverage as some kind of objective take on games and reflect on what folks are saying now.

Do people really think outlets back then would have been so willing to muck up the favor of publishers out of concerns they had about sexism or racism? Or the social messages and perhaps gross aspects of games? Recent willingness to actually question developers and express individual opinion has been a boon to efforts against potential corruption. The big concern of corruption is collusion with game publishers and advertisers, not with a writer's willingness to criticize them and potentially step outside the norm by giving a big new game an unfavorable score.

If anything, reviews are still -too- homogeneous, and things like Metacritic and the way some companies are tying bonuses to review scores is bound to lead to more problems as we move forward. The way reviewers are sometimes flown around to fancy places to get "early" opportunities to review games or new consoles is suspect, as well, and there's a reason Giant Bomb has shied away from a lot of that in recent years. For new people getting into gaming coverage, that is especially a concern, because these are willful attempts to influence reviewers and get more favorable reviews and higher sales. It isn't known corruption, but they are things to be concerned about.

It's also worth mentioning YouTube sponsorships at a time when more and more people are looking to YouTube for their info on games. The fact is, that is basically the wild west of gaming coverage, and it is -known- to have serious reasons for concern. For a young guy posting some videos online, a publisher reaching out to offer some swag or sponsorship is bound to have some influence, and if they aren't very upfront about it, viewers will hardly know. Placing [This was sponsored by such and such] in your video description isn't good enough. There are some real reasons to worry when looking at YouTube and smaller blog coverage which is ever-increasing in their influence. For the most part, this open opportunity for anyone to garner that kind of influence is bound to end up favoring publishers with plenty of money to toss around. And this is the area of coverage many expressing concern about corruption lately are pointing to despite them being one of the more potentially problematic areas of coverage today. That is worrisome.

We've seen an end to a lot of the actual corruption in gaming coverage, but since many people have good memories of simpler times, that's somehow seen as less corrupt. I can actually trust individual voices now; I can't say that about gaming coverage back then. There are still plenty of concerns today, but a lot of them are the same advertising concerns as ever or they involve newer, more casual voices. There is plenty of evidence to suggest that publishers are as interested in influencing coverage and scores today as they ever were, and that is likely going to continue to be one of the most important areas of gaming coverage to be mindful about.

Outing a transwoman without her consent is absolutely terrible and the potential harm completely outweighs any possible good from it. Nothing about that is defensible.

This isn't an answer to OPs question, but It's very hard for me to imagine a concern that has less merit or less real world consequences than "corruption in video games journalism". It seems that many people are actually upset with a particular mindset and trends in the cottage industry of games coverage and they are conflating that with ethics for some reason.

GamerGate vs whatever the opposite of GamerGate is are just a subset of what feels like the same argument over and over again. There is definitely a wider cultural tension going on.

You're making it sound a lot simpler than it actually was in order to make him look bad. I'm not saying I condone what he did either, I just think every option he had in that situation was shitty. If you really wanted to I could argue this point further, but it has nothing to do with the current topic. As I said, regardless of our disagreement about the way he acted, that doesn't change the fact that there's clearly some evidence of legal wrongdoing here.

@jimbo: That's ridiculous and you know it, Jimbo. I may not agree with how some of the thread locking has been handled, but that has nothing to do with "corruption" or this thread. You know full well comments against the rules are deleted and threads that go off the rails get locked. And with big threads that take a ton of moderation to maintain, they can only do so much. No one is being moderated for actually putting out "a compelling case". They're being moderated for being jerks or derailing threads. Recent problems and dysfunction are primarily a reflection on our community, not the mods.

Considering this thread has gone okay so far, I hope your accusation does not derail it. I am sad that you feel so embittered as to talk as though moderators around here doing the best they can have anything to do with actual corruption in gaming.

@hunter5024: He could have simply done what his boss asked him to do in this situation. It's not like doing that would have had huge moral consequences (as in conscientious objection etc.) and the blame would have been on his boss, not him. That's how hierarchy works...

I don't get the outcry over the mailing list. They exist in every industry, in every field. It's called having friends, calling someone or just networking. The question is if what is discussed is collusion and I cannot see that in any of the leaked e-mails at all. It's friends talking about their work and asking for advice. It's not people going around saying "do not employ this person, or else...." or simply "do not employ this person, please." It's people saying "I do not want to employ this person."

Arguing that the list is proof of pervasive corruption in games journalism is ridiculous.

What's simple is that it is absolutely an ethical breach to reveal information that can potentially put a person in harm, and outing somebody as a trans does exactly that. When you have several shitty options, you take the least shitty option then. Outing her was absolutely the most shitty option in that situation.

If you think the action is illegal, then report it to the authorities, because it's obvious neither of us are really experts on this.

Ironically corruption in game journalism is probably less prevalent than in any other industry with the same volumes of money due to the ridiculous prioritising and scrutinising of the general topic of video games on the internet.

That and the open nature of it's communication over the internet causing a huge amount of media that doesn't classify as journalism anyway, word of mouth still being a major player as far as generating interest.

Basically there isn't much of a story here, and even where there is - who gives a fuck anyway. No one is secretly taking over the world here with video game journalism corruption and anyone with any genuine rage on the subject I can't regard as anything other than a complete loon.

The hilarious part is that those same people are probably either eating up or entirely ignoring everything they get fed in every other realm where journalism exists in regards to real world issues.