During the holiday season, gaming Web site Gamespot.com found itself entangled in a debate concerning journalistic integrity and whether or not the reviews ran on the site were influenced by those who paid for the advertisements on it. One review in particular, written by former editorial director Jeff Gerstmann about Eidos' "Kane & Lynch: Dead Men Walking" game, supposedly resulted in the director's dismissal after Eidos demanded the rating assigned to the game be changed or else they would pull their advertising from the site. Gerstmann gave the game a 6.0 out of 10, and the developer also took issue with the tone of the review. CNET, Gamespot's parent company, fired Gerstmann and rumors began to spread that advertiser pressure was a factor.
Gerstmann's firing led many in the video game journalism community, from other Web sites to magazines, to cover the incident constantly. Members of Ziff Davis Media (including 1up.com and Electronic Gaming Monthly) picketed in front of Gamespot's building in response to the firing. Independent gaming news and rumors Web site Destructoid.com had banners reading "Cashwhore - Formerly Destructoid Until We Wised Up," "Special Holiday Blowout Sale! Buy Huge Ads That Eat The Entire Site And Get A 6.9/10 Review Free! Manipulate Our Readers Today!" and "Now Hiring Reviews Editors! No Experience Necessary! No Game Playing Needed! Must Be A Good Listener, PhD In BS Preferred." Competitive gaming sites were joining together to fight for journalistic integrity and honesty and against the coercion brought upon by advertisers. Freelance reviewer Frank Provo left Gamespot shortly afterwards, citing the Gerstmann firing as his reason to do so, though he was clear to say on his LiveJournal that "the Gamespot staff did not fire Jeff. The Gamespot staff are NOT corrupt. Gamespot itself is not the problem. CNet is. CNet's management is."
A few days after the firing, Gamespot was asked to comment on the Gerstmann firing, though the spokesperson for the site couldn't disclose grounds for dismissal for legal reasons. On the issue of Eidos response to the review, the spokesperson said, "It has been confirmed that Eidos' respresentatives expressed their displeasure to their appropriate contacts at Gamespot, but not to the editorial directly. It was not the first time a publisher has voiced disappointment with a game review, and it won't be the last."
While this swirl of controversy surrounding Gamespot's legitimacy has calmed down somewhat, questions have arisen as to the legitimacy of reviews and whether or not they need to change. Should reviews continue to have numerical scorings of some sort, or should they be qualitatively written? Certain magazines, like Famitsu, from Japan, base their scoring on how big the fan base a particular game or franchise has, meaning the more fans, the higher the rating the game will receive. In the wake of the Gamespot controversy, public consciousness as to how reviews are written has been awakened somewhat. Are heavily advertised games going to get higher scores on Web sites and magazines because they fund the publications? If Gerstmann's firing has done anything, its made gamers aware of the biases that may arise due to advertisers. In Electronic Gaming Monthly's latest issue (Feb. 2008) Editor-in-Chief Dan Hsu openly writes about three companies that won't give their games to review because of poor reviews doled out to their titles: the Mortal Kombat team, Ubisoft and Sony's sports division. One can only hope that honest journalism will be rewarded with a supportive reader base that would negate manipulative advertising and the limitations to impartiality brought upon by it.
Contact Fernando Dutra at Fernando.Dutra@UConn.edu.
Be the first to comment on this article!