Greatatlantic
Erudite
Schmucks who write brain dead praise of them.
While the link is fairly specific to a Esquire article, I couldn't help but think of our gaming journalists. Basically to interview Jolie about her new movie the press had to sign contracts saying they wouldn't use the interview to make Jolie look bad and ONLY promote the movie. But...
You know, there are two kinds of gaming journalism: previews and reviews. The only way to do a previes is to get on the publisher's good side so they are the only ones who can let you see the game before its released. For reviews on the otherhand, anyone can buy and play the game. I think this is why no matter how obvious game negatives should have been in previews, they'll never get mentioned until reviews.
EDIT: For some reason I put the wrong magazine name.
While the link is fairly specific to a Esquire article, I couldn't help but think of our gaming journalists. Basically to interview Jolie about her new movie the press had to sign contracts saying they wouldn't use the interview to make Jolie look bad and ONLY promote the movie. But...
Slate said:But the joke of it all—the Angelina Jolie contract and the revolt against the contract—was that anyone was foolish enough to think a written contract was really necessary. When was the last time you read a celebrity profile that was "disparaging, demeaning or derogatory"?
The rules of the game, as established by the glossy magazines and the stars' PR reps, ensure that "access" (well, a half-hour chat in a restaurant that enables the magazine to proclaim it has an "exclusive" interview) and the all-important exclusive cover shot are granted only to those magazines and journalists who will refrain from anything but fawning prose. It works out well for everybody. Celebrity journalists who play along get a good payday, magazines get newsstand sales bumps, and the rest of us are inculcated into the received myths of Celebland, the legends that sustain the illusion that it is somehow truly important
You know, there are two kinds of gaming journalism: previews and reviews. The only way to do a previes is to get on the publisher's good side so they are the only ones who can let you see the game before its released. For reviews on the otherhand, anyone can buy and play the game. I think this is why no matter how obvious game negatives should have been in previews, they'll never get mentioned until reviews.
EDIT: For some reason I put the wrong magazine name.