pokoko said:
That's utterly ridiculous. The moment an editor tells a writer to write a review based on someone else's opinion, that's when credibility is lost. Telling the reviewer the score they need to hit based on another work would be a failure of journalistic integrity. Any writer worth reading would refuse immediately, and rightfully so. That's a horrible, awful suggestion. I'm sure some editors might tell a reviewer to lie for the sake of "consistency" but, as a consumer, that's something I would not accept if I knew it was taking place. I have far more respect for an editor that lets a writer write their own work without pre-setting the outcome in advance. |
What about the integrity to their readers? I see alot of concern for the journalist there, but in the end of the day both of them were writing for the same audience with different standards. How is this good journalism if theres no consistency? The publication should have a table from wich each score corresponds to the state the game is in. The rating should not wildly vary depending on who is reviewing. This reveals a lack of organisation and consistency. They are doing a disservice to their readers and their reviews are obviously incredibly parcial as a result.
