Forums - Gaming Discussion - - Video game journalists bias -

Vide game journalism is

Highly biased
Biased
Somewhat incoherent
coherent
truthfull
Answers

I'm not asking a question, because I am actually a journalist, I've studied in a litterrature, then media school before getting in marketing and propaganda.
So I know for a FACT that journalism is not a job for reporting or informing people but very well influence and manipulate them:

My question is to take the temperature, to know how many people are aware of the the extent and reasons of the manipulation.

Especially since the bias in video game journalism but also review sites has become obvious.

What do you think about the obviously most biased medias like Kotaku or Polygon (which are owned by a parent company behind Gawker and Vox Media), their technique of manipulation and their goals?

Here is for exemple a Gaf thread reporting about Microsoft financing Polygon up to 750,000$... http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=487897



Around the Network
I think advertising drives their content more than anything. Controversy and negativity bring the traffic and traffic brings more revenue potential. That colors journalistic integrity whether people want to accept it or not.

As for Polygon, a mountain is being made into a molehill by internet conspiracy hounds and those with an unhealthy bias (which are the worst kind) against Microsoft. Journalist and game reviewers WILL have leanings toward and against all kinds of things and those have more weight with Polygon than any amount of money would. Heck, the anti-MS sentiment at The Verge is FAR greater than any pro-MS sentiment at Polygon, but you'd have to live in the world outside of the microcosm of gaming to be aware of it.

I'm not talking about medias being pro- or anti- such console or the other. But I don't think it's as simple as "follow the money" and it's not the only point of a media.

I should have gone in details because obviously people are very ignorant in terms or propaganda/PR: Media outlet aims are paid by people with money, governments, corporations, lobbies, to use their influence in order to change people's mind for their interest.

In the case of any corporations, electronic or whatnot, their spill money in lobbies, associations and other indirect pawns which then inject money in media outlet to change readers into stupid compulsive buyers.

If it's a government who wants to say, attack Iran, they inject money in intermediates like lobbies, think thanks etc...which in their turn inject money in medias to influence readers into stupid supporter of a war.

Of course it gets complicated when several people have the same interest which makes the propaganda stronger, like oil companies, car companies and government together, or Microsoft, the Kinnect and the NSA...



As a journalist yourself, you should understand that true unbiasedness doesn't exist.



Wright said:

As a journalist yourself, you should understand that true unbiasedness doesn't exist.

Yeah and equality between humans doesn't exist, and women can't be equal to men, and homosexuals can't have children etc...

Yes true unbiasedness exists, we're not talking about true objectivity, we're talking about true neutrality which is what the original and most important ethic of journalism, or justice, or government demands.

Then there is kind of neutral and completely biased journalists which lots of medias outlet have reach, especially in main video games, or tech/electronic consumer medias.



Around the Network
blublibla said:


Yes true unbiasedness exists, we're not talking about true objectivity, we're talking about true neutrality which is what the original and most important ethic of journalism, or justice, or government demands.


Utopian ideas can't be an integral part of a journalist. True neutrality and "truth" cannot co-exist together. A human is flawed; therefore he can't be truly unbiased.

 

A journalist can only approach himself as closer as he can to neutrality. But he will never be fully neutral.



blublibla said:

I'm not talking about medias being pro- or anti- such console or the other. But I don't think it's as simple as "follow the money" and it's not the only point of a media.

I should have gone in details because obviously people are very ignorant in terms or propaganda/PR: Media outlet aims are paid by people with money, governments, corporations, lobbies, to use their influence in order to change people's mind for their interest.

In the case of any corporations, electronic or whatnot, their spill money in lobbies, associations and other indirect pawns which then inject money in media outlet to change readers into stupid compulsive buyers.

If it's a government who wants to say, attack Iran, they inject money in intermediates like lobbies, think thanks etc...which in their turn inject money in medias to influence readers into stupid supporter of a war.

Of course it gets complicated when several people have the same interest which makes the propaganda stronger, like oil companies, car companies and government together, or Microsoft, the Kinnect and the NSA...

Sorry.  You completely lost me there.  Have fun with this ...



Darth Tigris said:
blublibla said:

I'm not talking about medias being pro- or anti- such console or the other. But I don't think it's as simple as "follow the money" and it's not the only point of a media.

I should have gone in details because obviously people are very ignorant in terms or propaganda/PR: Media outlet aims are paid by people with money, governments, corporations, lobbies, to use their influence in order to change people's mind for their interest.

In the case of any corporations, electronic or whatnot, their spill money in lobbies, associations and other indirect pawns which then inject money in media outlet to change readers into stupid compulsive buyers.

If it's a government who wants to say, attack Iran, they inject money in intermediates like lobbies, think thanks etc...which in their turn inject money in medias to influence readers into stupid supporter of a war.

Of course it gets complicated when several people have the same interest which makes the propaganda stronger, like oil companies, car companies and government together, or Microsoft, the Kinnect and the NSA...

Sorry.  You completely lost me there.  Have fun with this ...

Why so quick to dismiss, companies will do whatever they want until they get caught.

http://www.theverge.com/2013/11/21/5129890/lg-admits-smart-tvs-ignored-privacy-setting-promises-update

The opt-out option isn't particularly prominent, but the problem with it was discovered when UK developer "DoctorBeet" found that even though he'd tried to turn off collection, his TV still passed unencrypted data about which channels he was watching back to a server. Beyond that, it also appeared to periodically check his attached USB drive and collect the names of files on it, something that's not described as part of LG's targeted ad system. LG confirmed this report as well: "While the file names are not stored, the transmission of such file names was part of a new feature being readied to search for data from the internet (metadata) related to the program being watched in order to deliver a better viewing experience,"

It's in MS' interest to collect user data as well, targeted adds are worth a lot of money.
Same for Sony, they openly warn you when making a sub account that your child's data may be shared with 3rd parties.

The propaganda here is that it's all harmless anonymous data collection, and that MS will never hand it over to the NSA. Which they ofcourse already did with Outlook, Skydrive and Skype. Plus how do targeted ads work when it's all anonymous... Storing an IP adress instead of a name is not anonymous, it's still profiling you.

My wife just said today that she started to get creeped out that stuff she searches on Ebay appears on her Facebook moments later. Maybe some people find it cool that when you start up your laptop you get personalized adds based on what you watched the night before, I find it rather creepy.


Bias in videogame journalism is also due to the secrecy around game releases. You want an early scoop, then get behind the company line.  Metacritic scores for hyped games usually go down when later reviews come out.
On the other hand generating clicks is just as important for website journalism. Exaggeration works best for that, factual objective reviews are worthless.



interesting...

 photo Untitled_zps1554d7f7.png

Around the Network
Here you go, for those interested: I'm trying to create a topic referencing the different infrastructures, influence relations and manipulation technics in video game medias.

For exemple digging into Gawker media shareholder identity and activity, owned by Nick Denton, reveals interesting with political movements which can explain some of their war-mongering tones.

Then among the typical manipulation technics not in the wording or article but in the system of comments, the partial validation of comments putting to the sides all the comments which don't fit Gawker's orientation.

Also note that it's never THAT insidious, some agendas are just the belief of a journalists who gets out of his ethics to defend views about feminists (George Kamitani's polemic), or LGBT agendas...