Nem said:
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.
|
Journalistic integrity is about the audience. It means you're not going to lie to them even if lying would make the writer or the publication look better. This is a perfect example. If the editor told the writer to put together a review that made Zombi fall two points below ZombiU, no one would be yelling at IGN right now but it would mean the writer lying to the reader and would make the article itself completely worthless.
They absolutely should never have anything like a table. The very moment an editor tells an employee that their own opinion is wrong and invalid and that they want them to write a review BASED ON THE ASSUMPTION THAT SOMEONE ELSE'S OPINION IS THE ONLY CORRECT OPINION then they've just negated the very basis of what an opinion is, they've told their new writer that their old writer was better, and they've straight-up delivered a lie to the reader.
That should never happen, especially over something as subjective as a review score. Opinions vary, sometimes greatly. That's natural and anyone who is reading opinion based articles should understand that.
