I read the piece, I just didn't notice the tiny link to the p4gaming site. Now that I've read up on the actual story, it's still pretty onerous. Not too surprising though; I was once a "gaming journalist" myself, albeit 10+ years ago. For those that don't know the backstory, here's a pretty detailed account:
http://penny-arcade.com/report/edito...-why-this-stor
Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state, an intolerable one. - Thomas Paine
America can always be counted on to do the right thing after they have exhausted all other possibilities. - Winston Churchill
Yeah, the whole Dorito-Gate thing was a clusterfuck.Originally Posted by Hawksmoor
The guys at Giant Bomb had a really great discussion about it on their podcast a week or so after it came out.
Before listening to that podcast I was unaware of the business practice of game companies paying for "mock reviews" that are written by freelance game journalists and only distributed internally in the company for the purpose of the game developers to see what the potential press criticisms are going to be (so that they can either adjust the game or prepare for the inevitable).
Apparently the work for Square that Wainright did was "mock review" type contract work, and she tried to cover that up when the whole thing with Eurogamer went down.
Fascinating stuff to read about, but again, she's very much a real person and not a fabrication.
"And the book says: 'We may be through with the past, but the past ain't through with us.'"
That's kind of the beauty of forums, in that you can come here and get a range of opinions on something secure in the knowledge that those that provide them aren't in someone's pocket. Unless of course you stumble upon a fake account set up by a publisher to spread the word about how great their game is
One of my favourite things about gaming journalism is the puzzlement I read after they've posted a bad review for a game, and yet it sells well regardless. As if (a) every possible consumer reads their stuff and just willfully ignored it and (b) as if after reading months of 'previews' where they never *really* say anything negative (just cautionary stuff like 'it's not polished yet but I expect they'll address that) they expect those that did read their stuff to forget everything that they had read previously and just concentrate on the review itself.
To be honest we shouldn't ever call it journalism, as it is all part of the marketing machine. That's not a disparagement of any kind, I'm just calling it what it is. Maybe everything would run smoother if everyone just came out and admitted it was the case and stopped worrying about what people would think. I honestly don't think anyone would stop reading the stuff, as it's still entertaining and informative in it's own way.
Time will be when the broadest river dries
And the great cities wane and last descend
Into the dust, for all things have an end
It's no secret that we've seen at least a few instances of journalism lacking integrity or publishers blatantly trying to strong-arm journalists and/or punish them for doing their jobs. This satire is far too subtle to work because of that. It's very believable, and honestly even if it were true it wouldn't be the worst behavior we could cite.
Last edited by TonyTheTiger; 11-28-2012 at 09:17 AM.
Especially considering that a similar thing ACTUALLY happened with movie reviews, was exposed and Sony/Columbia Pictures got dragged through the mud for it:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_M...ious_writer%29
Interestingly, I reached out to Lauren Wainright last night to see if she was aware of the satirical article about her being a "fabrication".
She wasn't and she was a bit troubled that it was potentially going to get picked up in RSS feeds as a legitimate news story.
Per the conversation that we had I feel comfortable saying that she is in fact a real person.
"And the book says: 'We may be through with the past, but the past ain't through with us.'"
That doesn't mean she isn't a fake journalist.
I've known Lauren for a long time (starting out when we were both hanging out on Destructoid back in ~2008), and this is fucking hilarious to me. The idea that the person I've known for 4 years is a made-up personality is ridiculous.
*shrug* whatever people get paid to do/call themselves isn't my business, my issue was the fact that the original cited article claimed that she was a total fabrication and people here were taking it deadly seriously.
"And the book says: 'We may be through with the past, but the past ain't through with us.'"
"David Manning was a fictitious film critic created by a marketing executive working for Sony Corporation around July 2000 to give consistently good reviews for releases from Sony subsidiary Columbia Pictures. ... Newsweek reporter John Horn disclosed the truth about Manning in a June 2001 article, which emerged at around the same time as an announcement that Sony had used employees posing as moviegoers in television commercials to praise Mel Gibson's The Patriot."
After Sony's fake movie reviewer debacle and fake moviegoer debacle, Sony got in trouble for the same thing yet again a few years after. Remember the blog that was gushing over the PSP that turned out to be a fraud? lol
http://adage.com/article/small-agenc...fiasco/113945/
http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology...1/newsonyviral
I'd think companies would learn not to do this by now. What are they thinking??
Last edited by Rob2600; 11-28-2012 at 09:55 AM.
Wow, the fallout and drama from this is ridiculous and hilarious. Great job essentially destroying your career in games journalism by overreacting, Ms. Wainright. Some people just have no common sense. Even if someone sees nothing wrong with that free PS3 contest, why would a journalist think it a good idea to say so publicly? Maybe you might get some flak for participating alone, but the more you say, the more attention you draw to yourself, especially if you're taking sides in a controversial issue. Just keep your opinions to yourself, for crying out loud. Either that, or be willing to accept a little chastising from the opposing side. What point is there in saying that there's nothing wrong with it than to argue against those who say there is? You can dish out a debating point but not take one back?
Posting Permissions
As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases. Similar agreements apply to other advertising or affiliate programs such as those from eBay, Google, etc.
Copyright © 1991 - Present of Digital Press. All rights reserved.
Reply With Quote
