Editorial RPG Codex Editorial: Games Journalism Scandal

[DraQ]

Was Bloodnet about hunting down and torturing some undesirables?

Well it *was* about tracking down and killing people.

 

[krbkkr]

This is not any sort of defence of said "journalists". But their pay is pretty low. Intent Media (company Lauren Wainwright works for and which apparently threatened to sue EG) advertised this job a couple of days ago:
http://www.mcvuk.com/jobs/read/editorial-assistant-junior-staff-writer

I mean, living on £14-16k a year (UK average earnings around 24.5k) probably makes the free food and drink seem just a bit less insignificant.

I'd never want to write for a mainstream media site, though, as a paid fulltime job. Seems like an awful, shitty job to me.

I'd say!

 

[Hormalakh]

"I get to play games all day and write about it?! Why are they even paying me?" is the big problem. Then when they start to work and then suddenly realize that the job isn't as alluring as it was before, they can suddenly rationalize the "gifts."

TNOs point stands. Doctors get paid good money. Yet even they were/are influenced by pharma reps.

1) You're making a fuss about nothing more untoward than doctors receiving complementary pens or a clock or a chicken sandwich from the pharmaceutical industry. What, do you really expect us to waste our time turning down every gifted mouse-mat? Do you really think we're affected by such petty things? This is a trivial non-story that's been turned into a witch-hunt!

2) Doctors who don't work hard at their relationships with pharmaceutical reps will miss out on important new drug discoveries. What you're saying is that you want us to become totally isolated hermits who never speak to anyone, ever - you're being unreasonable!

3) It's disgraceful that this story has been talked about so much when there's been a hurricane in New York/other important news item! Get some perspective, people!

4) So maybe we are in danger of being influenced by our relationship with pharma reps. But we're also in danger of being influenced by the time of day, or if we're feeling cranky, or if we just did a really satisfying poo. It's unreasonable to expect us to avoid all possibility of being influenced by things, you know!

5) Why do we need to set up explicit boundaries and guidelines? Clearly we live in an age of internet cynicism. We need to have more implicit trust in doctors to do the right thing, and more trust in patients, because they can always tell when somebody's a shill (unless they happen to be a misguided senseless internet witch-hunt mob, like these particular patients)!

6) It's very important to keep a watchful, critical eye on any medical industry. The doctors who've done so in this particular case, however, are nothing more than self-righteous, navel-gazing, bullying, rabble-rousing, who are destroying the credibility of medicine, etc, etc.

7) But...but...you're hurting the reputation of medical professionals by acting as if anything might need to change!

Fixed. It's surprising how the exact same rationalizations were used for such a long time in the medical industry.