|
Ed-vs-Ad – The Quandary of the Populist Press |
|
by Justin Pearsall
|
|
Tue:11-Dec-07 |
I’ve got a confession to make… Recently I’ve become a gamer nerd.
Starting with tape, screwdrivers and the Commodore 64 and moving all the way through to black, sleek and shiny in the PS2, I’ve always had a thing for video games. But up until recently I assumed I had moved beyond the ‘fad’, incorrectly predicting that Rolling Thunder, Brian Lara’s Cricket and Metal Gear Solid were all relics of my past; that this fascination could safely be stored in the closest with my sporting equipment, basketball cards and monstrously oversized buckets of protein powder, left only to be dragged out for Christmas visits with the grandparents. But when a friend’s house was ransacked and the insurers upgraded his Xbox to its next-gen equivalent the Xbox 360, I – like the entertainment-enthralled version of a dope fiend – got back on that horse, making my long awaited return to the gaming universe.
Part of my gaming nerd renaissance has been trying to keep up with the world of video games. Since my gameplay heyday of about four years ago this scene has changed quite a bit, but thanks to another technological advancement, the Podcast, I’ve been able to quell my sudden need for all gaming-related news and views. Through some of these Podcasts – 1 UP Yours and EGM Live, particularly – I’ve educated myself with enough of the jargon to pass through a reasonable gamer conversation – even if I still imagine I’d stand out like a clueless freak at a World of Warcraft convention.
But asides from now being able to decode FPS, XBLA and WOW, I was also gifted with a fitting editorial topic from my Podcast listening, one that proves to stretch across all forms of ad-based media. This issue being the pressures publications face when they are reviewing material presented by their advertisers.
In regards to the gaming community the issue can be summarised like this: Jeff Gerstmann, then editorial director of gaming website Gamespot, was recently fired for what was rumoured to be linked to his less than flattering review of the Eidos Interactive game Kane & Lynch: Dead Men. The supposed issue with the review’s low scoring (6/10) being that Eidos had advertised the game heavily on Gamespot, and were expecting a more positive appraisal. Since news of Gerstmann’s firing has reached publications and the gaming public there has been widespread and vocal criticism of Gamespot and Eidos for their alleged actions.
Irrespective of whether you’re a gaming, film, book, restaurant or car fan, the issue of advertising influencing editorial is one that affects you. Readers must be able to trust the publication for an informed, unbiased and uncompromising opinion. And at WB we emphasise to our writers that their opinions are valued and that any criticism they may have of an artist’s work is not only valid, it is protected and championed, regardless of any advertising interest.
But how do you, the reader, truly know this?
While the 1 Up Yours Podcast team is right in arguing that instances of editorial pressure are hard to predict and monitor, it is my belief that over time a publication will be weaker for inflated scores regardless of whether not this conduct is ever uncovered. Readers of a product will ultimately align themselves with publications that match their taste and there is a certain amount of critical analysis that takes place with even the most cursory readings of a review – even if this only comes in the form of you losing interest in a publication.
At WB we’ve had people in the industry express surprise at our attitudes to the issue of editorial comment for advertising dollar – some even suggesting that we may be slightly naive in our views. But to me, as both a fan and as a contributor to the populist press, there is nothing to gain from such short-term, take-the-money-and-run thinking. A publication’s power lies in its ability to provide honest and authoritative coverage; coverage that doesn’t bend to advertiser demands or popular opinion. To win this respect from the reader takes time and the faultless execution of these goals, something which can be shattered by the publication of one tiny tampered opinion.
|
_1173051598.jpg)
_1178492449.jpg)
_1186954464.jpg)
