Bribery, twitter and games journalism

The last couple of days have been fairly interesting to say the least, especially if you follow a lot of games writers and editors on twitter. Suffice it to say the industry has not exactly covered itself in glory but some of the perceived ideas and outcomes seem to have blurred the lines. Many people have since jumped on the bandwagon and it seems strange that the original issues are now just being diluted in a feverish quest for page hits.

Personally I'm not here to take sides as I'm very much on the periphery of the gaming industry, I focus solely on writing reviews and previews for two websites (that are owned by the same company) and outside of that remit I have very little else to do with the industry at large. I don't go to awards shows, I don't attend PR events and I don't meet up with other writers on a very regular basis. The only time this actually happens is when I get shipped off to Gamescom each year and, while I thoroughly enjoy meeting new people and have a good time, the main focus is always on trying to get the best information and articles I can for the people that read my stuff.

Oh, did I mention I don't get paid for this? I probably should before I get tarred with seemingly the same brush that most people do. Heck, I don't even get sent review copies for all of the games that we cover. In the past, when the site was starting out, I would pretty much buy every game that I needed to review. That statistic then probably got to about 50/50 in the last couple of years and then, in the last year, we have finally reached a standing where review copies provide the bulk of our material.

Anyway, let's break this down into what happened, the fallout and my ramblings (seeing as no one else is really answering the supposed issue at all).

What happened?

A week or so ago the GMA's happened. It's basically an awards show, where a bunch of publishers/stores/sites etc sponsor a shindig to reward the best publications and writers. People get to submit their nominations and so on in advance which is then whittled down to a shortlist and then a separate panel votes on the winner. Easy.

Now as part of this event a PR company was running a competition where people could win a free PS3 by retweeting a hashtag. Some people took exception to that idea and accused anyone taking part of having a massive conflict of interest. Cue a twitter row and then a bevy of articles.

As people probably know, or people who choose to read this anyway, the main cause of this furore was an article by Robert Florence over at Eurogamer (here). That's a link to the full article prior to the cuts, but more on that in a moment.

In the article Rob (or Rab if you prefer) takes a rather broad swipe at the strange, almost symbiotic, relationship between the gaming press and gaming PR. He does this by pointing out that there is often a fine line between having a merely good relationship and one that is far too close for comfort. However, ever since then there seems to have been some kind of meltdown. Part of which is brought on by Rob himself and part by other people.

Now, when you are writing an article about the possibility of corruption in the gaming industry it's a topic that is inevitably going to stir up some controversy. Rob knew that going in, heck most of his articles on Eurogamer have stirred the hornets nest in one way or another. That's what he does and that is exactly why he was hired. To say otherwise would be foolishly naive.

However, what Rob also seems to do is take an active delight in what he writes about. It is easy to say "well someone had to say it" but there are ways and means to get your point across without appearing to victimise individuals. On the one hand you have Rob saying this (I've added the emphasis):

"I want to make a confession. I stalk games journalists. It's something I've always done. I keep an eye on people. I have a mental list of games journos who are the very worst of the bunch. The ones who are at every PR launch event, the ones who tweet about all the freebies they get. I am fascinated by them. I won't name them here, because it's a horrible thing to do, but I'm sure some of you will know who they are."

It's an issue we may well be aware of. Heck even in my small time capacity I'm aware of it. People who write about games purely and simply to get free shit. You only have to be at E3 or the so called 'industry only day' at Gamescom to see that. So called writers wandering around with whatever they can carry and doing very little in the way of work or journalism. But to say that is an industry wide endemic may be a touch off the mark - those people, by and large, are amateurs. People that write for their own little website and have somehow managed to wangle their way into an event they should never really be a part of. I'm sure there are people in the 'serious' side of games journalism that have been given, and accepted, free stuff too but it all comes down to how they act. If they get a bunch of swag and give it away to their readers, stuff it in a drawer or never even mention it to anyone - have they been comprised? Has their integrity been shattered in some way? I doubt it.

The problem with Rob's article is that, precisely before making his statement not to name names, he did exactly that. Blurting out the names of two writers so they could be held up for scrutiny (I don't really include Geoff Keighley as he, or his show, are quite clearly sponsored by a variety of companies). Does it really matter that when questioning whether they were 'corrupt' or not he added the proviso, "I'm sure she isn't"? Not really, because you can already see that he has made up his mind, and the whole gist of the article is to help the reader make up their mind too. These people were WRONG and are PROBABLY corrupt. He could have made the self same point without naming any names (as he stated) but chose not to. He chose that probably knowing what the fallout would be.

The article in general merely scratched the surface of its potential argument while throwing two scapegoats out to dry. Is tweeting a hashtag to enter a competition advertising? Yes it is. Is doing so somehow completely overriding all of your journalistic integrity? Unlikely.

Likewise he seems to state that while people can be games journalists they cannot also be fans of said games. If you get a new game and tweet about being excited to play it (maybe with a picture - you devil). WRONG. If you announce your excitement of upcoming games. WRONG. If you use a backdrop from one of your favourite game series. WRONG. Only he never states exactly why these things could be wrong. Are we meant to assume that all games writers cannot possibly be critical of their favourite series? Or would it be safe to assume that they could be even more critical? Who knows.

The first thing I see when I notice someone has a Tomb Raider backdrop is not that it's an advert, merely that said person is probably a fan of the game - and the same could be said for the vast majority of people in the same situation. Could it be seen as an advert? Well it's possible, but probably more possible if you were writing an article about game industry corruption. For the average person it's just a picture and they move on.

Entering a competition, or defending said competition, are hardly the bastions of corruption they are made out to be. Perhaps if Rob had actually gone into some depth about grossly expensive press trips, PR days out (that sometimes have nothing to do with the games in question) and a stream of swag sent to writers doors then he would have had a point. Though again that would only be true if he could somehow prove that these nefarious deeds had ever been reciprocated by the people attending them. Had bad games got good scores or received positive coverage? We don't know and neither does that article, as it makes a generalisation without having the facts to back them up. A hashtag competition, entered by more PR people than actual journos if truth be told (a fact conveniently overlooked) is hardly the starting point of a slip slide into hell.

The general thrust is a world where PR control all games writers which couldn't be further from the truth. But more on that later.

What happened next (aka: THE INTERNET!)

Then the inevitable happened. Someone asked for the comments to be removed, Eurogamer obliged and Rob resigned. An unfortunate chain of events, but that was nothing compared to what would follow.

As ever with the internet, and games writers in general, something had to be done. So a flurry of articles and opinions started to form. People had already gotten testy over the hashtag competition itself, so with the resulting article being censored now came the cries of freedom of speech and so on.

Industry veterans like Ben Kuchera and Stu Campbell gave their five cents and were queueing up (along with sites like Killscreen, Forbes and the rest) to try and interview Rob to get his angle on the events that transpired and how badly he had been treated. The leading voice amongst these people was John Walker (Rock, Paper, Shotgun) a writer held in high esteem amongst the community.

They came out and said it was appalling that Rob had been fired (he actually quit) and laid the blame solely on the shoulders of a writer named in the article who had asked for the comments, questioning their morals, to be removed. Interestingly none of them even so much as mentioned the second writer whose name was also removed - strange that.

Now I agree with freedom of the press, as having the right to quote and respond to people is vital in society. However, yet again it is worth noting that the article in question would have been absolutely fine with names omitted - the reason they were not was to simply get a response. Which begs the question of why everyone was shocked when that is exactly what happened.

Now John, to his credit, was less interested in the competition and all of that nonsense. His main concern was the fact that another writer had been censored, in his view unjustly, and that the discussion of PR in games was being ignored. He has some valid comments if truth be told but, for me, the only mistake anyone ever made here was actually stating publicly that they wanted the comments removed. If this had all happened behind the scenes with no public gallery then it may have worked out much differently.

(Though I will point out that John also seems to believe that the article in question would have had minimal impact on either of the two people mentioned. I wonder if John would have, after reading that piece, ever consider hiring the two writers in question should the opportunity arise? Or would his view have been tainted by Rob's article - again, it comes back to perception and intent.)

No, my issue with the posts by John Walker (and the numerous other people trawling this affair for a few hits - at least John kept it to his own blog) was the quite obvious impact it inevitably had. The GMA awards, the article itself and the censorship of it were actually fairly well confined to begin with - with most of the flare ups only being between PR and games industry people, plus a number of disgruntled Eurogamer users.

Then articles sprung up in sites across the globe, and every article suddenly had a certain writers name attached to it, blaming her solely for Rob's departure (again, for the back rows, he resigned - admittedly he did so on principle but it was still his own choice). Comments boards were outraged and people were throwing up and retweeting links to articles decrying her behaviour.

Then the internet happened.

People started bombarding her and her employer with insults, abuse and the rest. They started to trawl through her history and try to find any hint of possible corruption and conflict of interest in her actions. In short: the trolls emerged. They all point with glee about the fact the writer in question is now trying to remove any issues from her resume and so on. Considering most observers state this should have been done anyway then how can her doing WHAT YOU WANTED now be a source of derision?

After a round of wailing and gnashing of teeth we had the obvious attempts to calm things down. Rob Florence stated that he didn't endorse insults, John Walker informed us that anyone who said certain things should chop off their hands. And yet.........

John Walker made a few quotes that I find especially interesting:

"Those are the two things she did wrong. Both, I believe, were stupid. The latter, I believe, was despicable."

"And now, thanks to the magic of the Streisand Effect, which (she) undoubtedly brought down on herself."

"(She) absolutely should be condemned for her actions this morning."

The word despicable, for me, is usually reserved for the worst the world has to offer. So in this instance I find it unbelievably harsh, to then follow that up to say that the writer in question has brought this all on themselves and should be condemned, well......

When John Walker (who has 7000+ followers and who knows how many fans on RPS) decries someone in a very public way can he honestly say he didn't expect to send some bile her way? Can he honestly stand back and say 'oh, I didn't think that would happen - it's awful.' I rather doubt it. The same can be said for Rob himself who must have known the impact his article would have on the two people he named even then. All of the other public, and iconic, gaming figures too must know how the internet works. When someone in a position of authority, someone that people look up to, points a finger and tells their rabid fans how awful someone is - what do they think would be the outcome? Multiply that by all of the other senior writers and websites that leaped to Rob's defence and the torrent of abuse was inevitable.

Again, I have no issue with people having the discussion. Talking about the effect of PR. Talking about the state of the industry as a whole. It's the only way we can all grow and learn. After all gaming is a big business now, but it's still a very small place to work - so when people start to call one another out, publicly, then the end result is going to be exactly what happened which is one writer being set upon by the rabid fans of countless websites that are somehow emerging as paragons of virtue in all of this. Wrongly in my opinion.

These writers may well be respected and may well have valid points but their actions have merely served to exacerbate an already bad situation. Saying someone had 'brought this on themselves' while standing next to the fire with a handful of coal is about as far from the moral high ground as you can get.

PR vs Writers

In my opinion the real problem with Rob's article and the subsequent defence of it by numerous people, including John Walker, is the seeming misunderstanding of the influence PR has on the gaming industry at large. While they are constantly slapping each other on the back and saying a discussion about the chummy relationship needs to occur you have to look at the facts.

We live in an age of gaming magazines, e-zines, websites, blogs, podcasts and video channels, the number of outlets for gaming information is frankly staggering and the ease with which a new site can pop up can't be ignored. Back in the day gaming news was purely down to magazines, or newspapers, and previews and reviews were held in much higher regard mainly because they just weren't as regular or as mainstream. It wouldn't surprise me if opinions could easily be bought back then - as it would have much more of an impact due to the confined nature of the readership and medium. Now though?

Well who do you bribe?

Serious question.

If you make a terrible game and pass it onto the PR company to 'sell' then there is only so much they can do. They can invite writers to press junkets, hold fun days with swanky cars and C-list celebrities, heck they can send out a novelty sausage with the games name emblazoned down one side. But that will not stop the game from being bad.

The reviews will roll in and they will still be negative. Metacritic and the like, for all of their faults, quickly highlight any anomalies and shows a fairly reasonable representation of how well a game has performed. So are the PR going to try and put money/games/consoles in the pockets of every writer they can find in order to change their mind? Of course not. But they have to play the game, they have to sell that product as if it's the best thing in the world and, guess what, the writers will smile, be nice and make small talk. Then the game will get a bad review anyway. For people to believe that a free meal and a game would be enough to make people sell out is nothing short of ludicrous.

With so many sites pushing out so much news then they will be eager to lap up exclusives, accept review copies of games to get content up early and attend events to get preview material. It's in the sites best interests to get that information as well as the PR's interests to put it out there. People will gradually gain contacts, make friends even, meet new writers and generally become more familiar with each other - but that is not down to some nefarious deal or self-serving interest - it's simply human nature. If you talk to people on a regular basis then the walls come down, and that's the same in any walk of life. Some journos and PR don't get on at all, but they keep things professional, others get on like best friends and can STILL keep things professional.

The GMA's are often pointed at with derision, as some kind of corporate buy in where peoples pals get rewarded and the true grafters suffer. But is that really the case? People who are good writers win and the rest do not. Plus, if it weren't for having corporate sponsors who would host such an event at all? No one, and then the community at large would miss out. The GMA's aren't for the readers, that's where people seem to be confused, they are for the writers. So if they want to get together and celebrate the best among then, let their hair down and sing bad karaoke - so what? I mean, is just attending a sponsored award show going to change how they write or view games. Does anyone actually believe that? No - it's back to this mythical issue of perception.

PR and journalists don't have to be rivals, as Rob seems to think, as they can maintain a friendly relationship and still get their jobs done. They could be worst enemies and also still get their job done - but it would be a damn sight harder on all involved.

The real issue here then is perception (what a word). The perception that PR have the keys to the kingdom, the perception that writers can be bought. Well here is the final newsflash.

It doesn't matter to readers.

It doesn't matter because some readers believe that anyway. The presence of press events and freebies doesn't fuel their opinions, just like the lack of those things wouldn't diminish their beliefs either. I gave a game 70% and people actively took to the sites forums to say that I'd been bought by rival publishers to give a competitor a low score. So not only do readers believe we are corrupt, they also believe that we are there to be bought by rival companies, as if review scores come down to who pays the most in a strange tug of war.

Readers build up a connection with writers, magazines and sites that they like, and trust, they also have the capacity to form their own opinions about games and the content in front of them as well. Some of them may perceive bias and contention in an article, but the majority will assume (as will probably be the case) that it was written as honestly as possible.

In short it's in everyones best interests for their to be a cordial PR/writer relationship, as it ensures that readers get good, timely, content on a regular basis and everyone wins. There are always going to be exceptions to every rule, and I'm sure sometimes people do cross the line and do so wilfully - but to tar the whole of the industry with the same brush is a colossal leap of imagination. Similarly it would be nice to sit down and discuss things in a calm rational manner - but the way to set that in motion is not to write a name and shame piece, nor is it to label people as despicable and set loose a horde of trolls in their direction. Whether that was your intention or not.

The games industry is, I believe, in a much better place than it used to be. Sure there is a plethora of PR but most sites, which is to say most well known sites, handle them professionally and keep their conduct above reproach. Does entering a competition cross the line? I don't think so, others do, but the real question should be: are most games writers corrupt? And the answer would be emphatically no.

What have we learnt?

In truth, probably nothing. In a few days everything will be as it was with only the careers of a number of writers being any worse for wear. It's true that the original issue may have been lost, but had it been handled in a subtler way (or at least with some editorial restraint) then we could have been having a rational conversation.

I love games. I love writing about games, talking about them and even anticipating them. So when people say the whole industry is corrupt and start to quickly point fingers at one another, form battlegrounds and make a mess - it upsets me, it upsets what I thought the people around me stood for.

Hopefully everyone involved will move forward and bridges will be rebuilt, I doubt it in some cases, but frankly for all of this I have still met some of the best people I know thanks to games. So I have you take my incoherent ramblings in good faith.