In late July, Marcus Beer appeared on GameTrailers’ Invisible Walls program and set his sights on independent developers Phil Fish and Jonathan Blow. Beer labelled the two developers as "Hipsters," "Wankers," "Tosspots" and so on. Fish fired back at Beer on Twitter, the argument escalated and Fish decided it was time to step away from the games industry.
 |
|
In late August, Marcus Beer returned for the second season premiere of his show Annoyed Gamer. This time he criticised the games media for coming to the defence of Phil Fish after their entanglement. Beer felt that the media had unfairly labelled him a “bully” and had no right to defend Fish. He claimed the media is, “there to serve the gamer, the reader, the viewer, the consumer...not the big boys, not the indie devs, not anybody else.”
However, Beer doesn’t seem to fully understand the role of journalism.
When it comes to reporting the news, the media serves everyone in the industry, whether that be readers, consumers, developers, publishers, console creators, even the independents. As a former journalist, Beer should be well aware of this.
A media that serves the developers and publishers doesn’t equate to being subservient to them. The media has just as much obligation to report when the consumers have done something wrong, as they do to call out the publishers and developers on their missteps. A games media that serves only the consumers results is an industry that is afraid to innovate and change but also free to take advantage of its own members without questioning. It might not be in service of the reader to report a developer failing to pay its staff or lay off hundreds at the end of a development cycle, but that doesn’t mean its not important. What Beer proposes, a media that serves only the reader, is exactly the same. Except the media would become an echo chamber for reader opinions, telling their audience only what they already want to hear.
He is correct though, that the media largely serves the publishers. Or as he puts it, “has their heads up the publishers’ asses.” Its all a matter of balance and ethics, two things almost non-existent in video game journalism. It seems most video game journalists believe that ethical reporting begins and ends with reporting only what they’ve been told. Rumour and editorial are unethical, and any opposing opinions count as editorial.
However journalism isn’t a clear cut process of transcribe a quote, provide context, publish. That’s a press release. Journalism requires scrutinising, analysis, opposition. If something feels one-sided either a journalist investigates opposing views or re-evaluates if it is truly worth publishing.
Without balance a journalist becomes a mouthpiece for their subject. In this case, the publishers and developers. Criticism of the industry usually comes in the form of black-and-white moral problems: ‘This developer lied to customer’ or ‘This product is discriminatory.’ Everything else is just business.
The culture of video games isn’t like other entertainment industries. Film, television and music reporting also focus on the efforts of individuals who work without concerns of financial returns and marketability. Director Steve McQueen said of his latest film 12 Years A Slave, “We made it. and thats it for me...If anything else comes our way, it’d be great, but what i’m most happy about with is it actually got made.” His concerns began and ended with the creation of an artistic work. Any praise the film receives is credited to the work of the director himself, the actors and the crew.
Video games are still, arguably, seen as a product made by a corporation. The average filmgoer might not care a film was produced by Universal, but the average player will sit up and pay attention to a game produced by Ubisoft. And video game reporting works largely on a cycle of preview/release/review. Always swept up in the hype of the latest releases, new products are reported on from announcement until release, then abandoned to make way for the next big title.
With a focus on the companies and the latest ‘product’, it creates a disdain for the artists who created the work and makes the reporting feel more like promoting a business.
However the ‘hype machine’ is an important part of the industry. Just as film media reports project announcements, casting news, poster reveals, teaser trailers, theatrical trailers and so on. The games media takes place largely online, and clicks matter. Articles about new games, new trailers, new screenshots, are an easy way to pull in a little extra advertising revenue with little effort.
How the games media chooses to report on the hype machine is where the ethical dilemma arises. The same concerns plague other branches of journalism, and while none are perfect, it is usually a little clearer to spot ethical violations.
Say the government announces a new environmental conservation policy. If a journalist reports the announcement, they have done their job and reported what is essentially the ‘truth.’
But, what if that same government’s last two environmental policies had been scrapped amid controversy and over-blown spending?
What if the opposition has announced a similar policy, except cheaper and more efficient?
All of these are true but if the last two facts are omitted the journalist has, inadvertently or not, produced a biased piece. As one university lecturer once told me, “Journalism is never about giving someone a free kick.”
We see similar situations turn up in the games media all too often.
 |
By Grabthar's Hammer, what a saving |
This piece by Gamespot News Editor Eddie Makuch, was based around comments made by Microsoft Corporate Vice President Yusuf Medhi at a technology conference in September. Makuch quotes Medhi as saying, “the Xbox One’s $500 price point represents a ‘very good deal’ for consumers based on the system’s capabilities,” and that the Xbox One is, “ ‘pretty unique’ relative to the competition.”
The article goes on to further quote Medhi’s thoughts on the upcoming console and its capabilities. What the article fails to mention is that the Playstation 4 offers many of the same gaming features for $100 less, and the Wii U offers many similar TV control functions for $200 less. Medhi has made some pretty bold claims and yet Makuch does nothing to refute or counter these claims. While it may be true that Medhi said those things, it is then Makuch’s job to take those claims and analyse them.
On the same day Makuch posted an article, again quoting Medhi, announcing more Xbox One Day One Edition console are available to preorder. Again, no mention of the Playstation 4, which launches just days before, nor the staggered release of the Xbox One across multiple territories. Instead he claims the Xbox One “will be released globally on November 22.” What makes all this more disconcerting, is that all of the information required was easily available. Makuch links to an article by colleague Martin Gaston, which details the price and region differences between the two launches, and Makuch just one day before interviewed Microsoft Senior Director Albert Penello and asked him about the price disparity.
Failing to do so does not mean Makuch is a ‘Microsoft fanboy’, nor in the console creator’s pocket. It does mean that Makuch has written an incredibly biased articles that amount to a “free kick” for Microsoft. As one who writes for the news section of Gamespot, and whats more is an editor, there is a saddening lack of basic journalism standards.
This also comes out in the frequent articles about online and retail deals.
They’re an odd inclusion in a journalism space. Most games media sites have in their ethics policy, when its available, that writers and editors have no part in negotiating advertisements or knowledge of their content.
However, when reporters then publish articles that only serves to advertise a product and its price, it brings the ethics of the entire organisation into question.
Polygon’s Senior Reporters Colin Campbell, Emily Gera, Jenna Pitcher, the entire reporting staff, are expected to report on the industry disconnected from the financial needs of their subjects.
And yet, articles abound of the amazing deals from Amazon, Sony’s PSN, Microsoft’s Xbox Live Marketplace, Steam and various physical retailers.
Whether the organisation is paid to post the article is irrelevant. It blurs the lines between what is news, what is opinion and what is paid advertisement.
The articles are usually short, and boil down to naming the product, its price and the praise that has been heaped on it.
To date, there are almost 400 such articles. All of which should create an uneasy feeling amongst readers.
For Polygon staffers especially, this should be a major concern.
Not long after its inception - and the claims they were going to reinvent games journalism - Polygon published an article about a competition held by Pizza Hut and Microsoft.
The comments section quickly filled with criticism over the clear ‘press release’ style of the article and its advertorial nature.
What compounded the situation was the, now seemingly, uncomfortable relationship Polygon had with Microsoft.
Microsoft was a major sponsor of predecessor and sister site The Verge. As well, Polygon’s origin story documentary Press Reset, was prominently ‘presented by Internet Explorer.’
Obviously, this too is not indicative of any financial or other incentives for the individual or organisation. But whether real or imagined, it raises questions about the motivations and ethical standards of the individuals and organisation.
And in journalism, public trust is paramount.
Sharon Mascall-Dare, a freelance journalist who has worked as a producer and reporter for both the BBC and ABC among many other organisations, once spoke at my university about journalism ethics. She made the majority of her pay doing public relations work for various businesses and organisations around Britain and Australia, one of which was a local winery. She said because of this she refused to report any news stories about wines or wineries. The possibility of bias, or even perceived bias, was not something she was willing to risk. Her credibility and responsibility to her colleagues, peers and to herself was too important.
How can one be expected to trust a news outlet that claims to be independent and ethical, yet is closely linked to one of its subjects? How can we trust any article to be impartial or review to accurately reflect the product, when the same writers are spruiking those products in the same breath?
One might argue informing the audience about a great chance to save a buck is ‘serving the readers,’ but that is totally false.
It tricks the reader into thinking they are being informed, when in fact they are being sold. While they should be treated as discerning ‘readers’ they are treated as easily mouldable ‘consumers.’
All too often is the excuse, ‘we’re fans too,’ thrown around. But that isn’t good enough.
If reporter’s are fans and want to tell their audience what a great deal they’ve uncovered, they can tweet it. Publishing it as an article, in a professional space under the organisation’s masthead, betrays the audience’s trust.
The discussion of journalism ethics is one that should never end. It’s often labelled as pointless navel-gazing (or as Stephen Totilo called it, “the same tired nonsense about games journalism that some folks love to carry on endlessly about.”) but it’s integral to the overall health of the industry.
If large sections of your audience has serious concerns about your ethics as a journalist, they’re not the one with the problem.
One might also be inclined to say something like, “It’s only video games. Who cares?”
The thousands of men and women who create games care. The ones who pour all their time and effort into creating something care. Those whose livelihoods depend on working in this industry.
The players who find friends, lovers, partners, spouses in games care. The players who find role models and inspiration in games. The ones who go on to create games of their own care.
The journalists who have been afforded a privileged place in society, as well as the chance to make their living writing about something they love should care too.
So if you’re a video game journalist and you don’t think its important to work ethically, to question the ‘big boys, to scrutinise everything they say, to call out the consumers and the readers when they cross the line, to give everyone a fair chance, if you think its boring to report on industry stories or talk about anything that isn’t part of the AAA hype machine, I question your place not only in the game industry but in the journalism industry.
No comments:
Post a Comment