Ethical bankruptcy = financial bankruptcy

"Because Television can make so much money doing its worst, it often cannot afford to do its best."
-Fred Friendly

Substitute the word 'television' with 'internet', and the above quote seems almost prophetic. Those were the words of Fred Friendly, the producer of See It Now, CBS's landmark news show, which was hosted by Friendly's longtime partner, the iconic Edward R. Murrow. As documented in the excellent film, "Good night and good luck", Murrow and Friendly used a series of See It Now shows in 1954 to shed light on the underhanded tactics of Senator Joseph McCarthy who, at the time, was using his political office to persecute innocent citizens under the guise of halting the spread of communism.

While there is little doubt the power of TV played a vital role in those events, it would have been useless without the courage and resolve of Murrow and Friendly. Despite repeated attempts by McCarthy and opposition members of the press to paint them as communist sympathizers and faced with the possible destruction of their careers, they never wavered in their shared belief that they were acting for the public good.

That was fifty years ago, but the lessons are just as relevant today.

For the past several days the internet has been buzzing over the latest example of ethics being sacrificed for profit. Gamespot, a well-respected source of video game news and information, fired their popular editorial director and employee of eleven years, Jeff Gerstmann, allegedly as a result of pressure from game developer Eidos, a large buyer of Gamespot advertising space. Gerstmann had recently reviewed Eidos's latest release, Kane and Lynch: Dead Men, giving it a decidedly negative score of 6 out of 10.

Since you're reading this blog and not living under a rock, you are probably aware of this story and have likely chosen a side by now -- believing either that Gerstmann was unjustly sacrificed on the altar of corporate profits, or that Gamespot and their parent company, CNET Networks, were within their rights to fire an employee who jeopardized an important advertiser relationship, potentially costing the company hundreds of thousands or even millions of dollars.

To clarify, I'm not comparing the social impact of reviewing a video game to that of preserving the Constitution. I also have no interest in proving or disproving the accuracy of the allegations against Gamespot. The fact is, true or not, this incident is a black eye for the entire business of gaming journalism. I am more interested in where we go from here.

"With great power there must also come - great responsibility."
-Stan Lee

As a medium, the internet is approaching a crossroads. In fact, it may have already barreled through it. As a tool for generating profit, the internet's been around for less than 20 years, but with recent acquisitions of companies like YouTube, MySpace and others commanding prices approaching $1 BILLION, the power of the internet to shape public opinion, create buying trends and influence corporate decision-making, is quickly approaching that of television. But it's still just a tool, and like Friendly and Murrow half a century ago, it is our courage and resolve that will determine the internet's impact on society.

Unlike websites that focus purely on entertainment content, journalistic outlets are tasked with balancing advertiser needs with fair and objective reporting, all the while producing compelling content that will attract and maintain high levels of readership.

Most video game outlets only make money because readers trust us to be unbiased sources of information. They count on us to help them avoid wasting time and money on bad games. If readers believe the opinions of game reviewers are no more than thinly veiled marketing campaigns dictated by game developers, that trust will be lost and those readers will leave en masse, taking all those advertising dollars with them.

As far as I'm concerned, if we betray the trust of our readers just to make an easy buck, then we deserve our inevitable fate...extinction.

Penny Arcade authors publicly comment on Gerstmann firing from Gamespot

Penny Arcade was one of the first sites on the internet (along with us and Primotech) to react to the Jeff Gerstmann incident -- making it the subject of today's PA strip. Later in the day, the authors made their first public comment on the situation. An excerpt from their statement follows with the complete version available after the break.

From Penny Arcade:

I will tell you the Gerstmann Story as we heard it. Management claimed to have spoken to Jeff about his "tone" before, and no doubt it was this tone that created tensions between their editorial content, the direction of the site, and the carefully crafted relationships that allowed Gamespot to act as an engine of revenue creation. After Gerstmann's savage flogging of Kane & Lynch, a game whose marketing investment on Gamespot alone reached into the hundreds of thousands, Eidos (we are told) pulled hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of future advertising from the site.

Management has another story, of course: management always has another story. But it's the firm belief internally that Jeff was sacrificed. And it had to be Jeff, at least, we believe, precisely because of his stature and longevity. It made for a dramatic public execution that left the editorial staff in disarray. Would that it were only about the 6.0 - at least then you'd know how to score something if you wanted to keep your Goddamned job. No, this was worse: the more nebulous "tone" would be the guide. I assume it was designed to terrify them.

At this point, I can only assume that Jeff Gerstmann is somewhere, sitting at his computer in bemused wonderment at the public outcry over this entire situation. Honestly, he's probably happy as a clam since this whole thing is very likely increasing his value for whatever company hires him next.

Read the complete statement after the break.

Complete statement From Penny Arcade:

It's been a couple weeks discussing reviews and reviewers around here, but somewhere along the way I neglected to mention that their job is essentially impossible. The 7-9 scale they toil under is largely the result of an uneasy peace between the business and editorial wings of the venue. No matter what score they give it, high or low, they're reviled equally by the online chorus. Apparently, even when they do it right they're doing it wrong.

Jeff Gerstmann is no stranger to controversy. In general terms, Gamespot can be relied upon to give high-profile games scores which are slightly lower than their counterparts elsewhere. It's almost as though there is an algorithm in place there to correct the heady rush associated with cracking open an anticipated new title. Gerstmann's review of Twilight Princess cemented his reputation as a criminal renegade with no law but his own, even though he gave the game an 8.9 - a nine, essentially - out of ten.

I will tell you the Gerstmann Story as we heard it. Management claimed to have spoken to Jeff about his "tone" before, and no doubt it was this tone that created tensions between their editorial content, the direction of the site, and the carefully crafted relationships that allowed Gamespot to act as an engine of revenue creation. After Gerstmann's savage flogging of Kane & Lynch, a game whose marketing investment on Gamespot alone reached into the hundreds of thousands, Eidos (we are told) pulled hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of future advertising from the site.

Management has another story, of course: management always has another story. But it's the firm belief internally that Jeff was sacrificed. And it had to be Jeff, at least, we believe, precisely because of his stature and longevity. It made for a dramatic public execution that left the editorial staff in disarray. Would that it were only about the 6.0 - at least then you'd know how to score something if you wanted to keep your Goddamned job. No, this was worse: the more nebulous "tone" would be the guide. I assume it was designed to terrify them.

For Gabriel, this tale proves out his darkest suspicions. People believe things like this anyway, but they don't know it, and the shift from intuitive to objective knowledge is startling. I think it rarely gets to this point. The apparatus is very tight: there are layers of editorial control that can massage the score, even when the text tells a different tale. A more junior reviewer might have seen their Kane & Lynch review streamlined by this process, divested of its worrisome angles and overall troubling shape. It was Jeff Gerstmann's role high in the site's infrastructure that allowed his raw editorial content to pierce the core of the business.

(CW)TB out.

Gerstmann controversy update - forums on fire

Posted by Tiberius Jonez
email tiberiusjonez@gmail.com

The 'Gerstmann incident' isn't going away for Gamespot or Eidos any time soon. Both company's forums have been flooded by angry posters voicing their displeasure with a situation they appear to perceive as two money-hungry companies scapegoating an ethical journalist. Whether or not that is actually the case, no one knows since those directly involved in the mess are not commenting publicly beyond short, pat press releases.

The latest development in the ongoing saga is that Gamespot has removed the video review of Kane and Lynch that was the alleged cause of Gerstmann's firing in the first place. The text version of the review has been amended with a note stating that "this review has been updated to include differences between the Xbox 360 and PS3 versions and a clarification on the game's multiplayer mode."

For those of you that never saw the original video review, you can watch it after the break.




It's difficult to believe that Gamespot didn't know this would blow up in their face, which makes me wonder if there isn't more to the story than is being told. The obvious answer is, of course there is more to the story, but until either side talks, this isn't going away!

Gamespot releases very brief statement on Gerstmann firing

In response to the storm of attention swirling around the firing of Jeff Gerstmann from Gamespot, the site's parent company, CNET Networks, released a very brief statement on the situation today.

"GameSpot takes its editorial integrity extremely seriously," the statement reads. "For over a decade, Gamespot and the many members of its editorial team have produced thousands of unbiased reviews that have been a valuable resource for the gaming community. At CNET Networks, we stand behind the editorial content that our teams produce on a daily basis."

As for Gerstmann specifically, CNET was less forthcoming, saying only that "it is CNET Networks' policy not to comment on the status of its employees, current or former."

If this is CNET's idea of damage control, it strikes me as pretty hollow. They seem to want everyone to respect their 'editorial integrity', but they say nothing in response to allegations they allowed an advertiser to dictate editorial content. A statement like this may have an effect opposite the one CNET intended. They may have been better off simply remaining mute on the subject, in essence taking the stance that they are above suspicion. Instead, they only further confirmed that their integrity is in question.

I suspect we'll hear more about this next week.

Gamespot fires reviewer Jeff Gerstmann to appease Eidos

Today is a sad day for gaming journalism. Game sites and magazines struggle daily to gain acceptance from the general public as legitimate sources of journalism, and this one is no exception. While GameJonez is a small fish (at present) swimming in a very large pond, we always strive to bring you news from the gaming industry in an honest and ethical manner. Unfortunately, it seems Gamespot does not share these values.

According to a report from Primotech, Gamespot fired Editorial Director Jeff Gerstmann, one of their best game reviewers, after he wrote a negative review of the game Kane and Lynch: Dead Men. Kane and Lynch is the latest release from game developer Eidos, who also happens to be a huge source of advertising revenue for Gamespot. Primotech alleges that Gerstmann was fired as a direct result of pressure from Eidos after he gave the game a 6.0 out of 10. In comparison, Metacritic gives the game an average score of 68 out of 100. Our metareview of the game suggested it should have been given more time in the oven before being served to the gaming public.

Eidos is heavily advertising Kane and Lynch this week on Gamespot, including interactive flash banners.

The latest Penny-Arcade comic features a brief overview of this controversy. However, because the comic isn’t scheduled to ‘go live’ until tomorrow, commentary from either Gabe or Tycho is currently unavailable.

Gerstmann was with Gamespot since 1996 and was largely responsible for their success. As Primotech points out in their story, it is possible that other factors contributed to his dismissal in addition to the review, although this is completely unsubstantiated at the present. While they stand behind their information and their source, no official announcement has been made by Gerstmann or Gamespot. We trust they wouldn't run with this story without solid information. Expect more details to emerge online in the next 24 hours.

In the meantime, if this all holds up as true, it is a chilling turn of events that could have far-reaching effects across the business of game journalism. How credible do gaming outlets appear if the opinions expressed in 'reviews' of games are dictated by advertisers who also make the games?