The rules may not be airtight, but they've already caused some
angry defensive bristlingfrom at least one fellow journalist [Keith Andrew, "
Editor at PocketGamer.biz, and general freelance monkey. Will give good reviews for cake"]
Some of those rules suggested in VG247's Doritosgate piece are plain daft. We're heading into 'extreme paranoia' territory now. That's all.
I'm failing to come up with an argument that can justify that opinion. But I'd love to hear one.
I look forward to VG247 marching out of the next event I'm at when lunch is served, heading down to BHS for a ham sandwich.
Meanwhile, VG247's readers will no doubt be perfectly content if they just pay their own way, at events and elsewhere.
Because, if you're good at your job, then you have nothing to be guilty about. Pat's line effectively suggests that all games journos *can* be bought. I'd suggest anyone in this industry who thinks that's the case is in the wrong job.
And yours effectively suggest that game journos [sic], unlike every other human being that ever lived if all the very exhaustive science that's been done on the subject is to be trusted, don't become less critical the more friendly they are with people involved with the subject of the critique.
I'd also like to point out here that there are A LOT of good people working in games PR who do nothing but a good job.
And while that is no doubt true, the fact that you feel the need to defend these people nicely demonstrates that you are in fact not one of these mythical super-human "game journos".
As usual, we have a VG247 editorial rallying against something they're one of the biggest purveyors of.
So keep an eye of them. If you suspect they're not following through, investigate and report on it. If you think yourself a journalist, doing so is part of your job description. And hey, if they really do live up to their promises, I really couldn't give a fuck how corrupt they were in the past.
Neah... What they promise is still less integrity than any old free rag I get tossed in my face whenever I exit my front door. So yeah... It's way better than what you promise, Mr. Andrew, and for that I do applaud them. But it isn't good enough.
No, completely unworkable. Even for a site the size of VG247. Unworkable and needless.
And I say you're wrong. But the thing is: neither one of us can know yet. Only time will tell. But it's nicely discomforting to know that you, an editor and self-proclaimed journalist and critic, is a pessimistic sell-out. Certainly it's a damn good reason to stay the hell away from
PocketGamer.biz and any and all freelance work you do.
Everyone will be watching VG247 like a hawk now to see if they keep to these daft rules, no doubt.
And that, my fiend, is a good thing. If you as an industry want any kind of credibility while remaining free from outside oversight, you all need to be watching each other. Just like actual journalists do.
Close working relationships are an *essential* part of this job.
No. Strictly professional working relationships is an essential part of the jobs you claim to do. Claiming you're capable of functioning as a critic or games journalist while maintaining close relationships with PR and other game industry people is every bit as extreme nonsense as claiming the Earth is is flat. How fucking self-unaware and under-educated are you?!
I've been for lunch paid for by publishers. I've also been to lunch with publishers paid for by my employer.
I guess congratulations? Whatevs. Both potentially compromise the objectivity of you and the outlet in question. Whether either actually is compromised is something neither is in any position to gauge. And that, my fiend, is why both you and the outlet should go to great lengths to avoid such situations.
Such lunches have resulted in zero direct coverage. They're just about maintaining or building good relations.
And that just makes it a hell of a lot worse. That kind of behaviour demonstrably compromises your objectivity. Or at least, in every other similar situation ever investigated, it has. But while you've kind of proved that you yourself is as human as the rest of us, I'm suuure you're right that other "game journos" really are super-human.
If I meet up for a drink with you in Bury, John, am I to turn down the offer if you buy me a pint?
Yes. If for no other reason than the man hasn't done anything to deserve suffering your company in his spare time.
Or should I label every article I ever write on Zee-3 with an acknowledgement that you purchased said pint for me?
Nobody has demanded, suggested or promised any such thing. What a journalist should do, is to avoid potential conflicts of interest - that includes the mere appearance of such - and disclose unavoidable ones.
No. Credit me with some intelligence, and also get rid of this notion that PRs/publishers are evil.
After all your bullshit? The only thing I'll credit you with is the ability to use twitter, and I'm honestly a little bit surprised you can manage that much. My damn fern comes across as having more brains than you do, you miserable git.
Interestingly, apart from the odd forum-dwelling amateur troll, nobody has suggested publishers, PR firms or anyone else is evil. At least not as it relates to the gaming media. What has been stated and restated, is that your industry must have a strictly professional relationship with theirs, because the nature of what you claim is your job is very often (but far from always) adversarial to theirs. That doesn't make you good guys, them bad guys or anything else along those lines. All it means is that it is their job to sell me anything they can, and it is your job to provide the information I need to make whatever purchasing decisions are right for me.
They're people. Relationships with them is essential. Pat's rules are utterly daft, and he won't keep to them.
When you get cosy with the people whose job it is to sell me everything they possibly can, you can't be objective about the stuff they're trying to sell me. And when you can't be objective, neither can I. So yeah, next time you get free shit tossed at you, remember who actually paid for it and try to pay me back with a bit of honesty and integrity, you fucking joke.
Pat's rules are less than the bare minimum needed for people in the line of work you both claim to be in. If you can't understand that, fucking educate yourself. If you can't accept it, stop pretending to be a journalist, critic and editor and embrace your job as the face of advertising. Again, people aren't evil or in any way bad because they try to sell me stuff. Trying to sell people stuff is a perfectly honourable profession. But it is the antithesis of journalism and criticism, and if you claim to do the latter when you're really doing the former, you are a bad guy. Not because you're trying to sell me stuff, but because whether you're aware of it or not, you're misinforming me and misleading me into spending my money against my interests.
- Yeah, I know Keith
Asshole Andrew will never read this. But it deserved a reply.
to VG24/7. Glad to at least see ONE site step up to the plate of at least some basis of credibility.
