By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
potato_hamster on 05 August 2016
Edit Thread
Veknoid_Outcast said:
potato_hamster said:

Well the main difference between journalists and "reviewers" and "critics" is that journalists typically have a university degree, and are bound to a code of ethics, and "reviewers" and "critics" are people expressing their opinions on the internet. I grew up with one of the top journalists in the country who works for a national news organization and she has a lot to say about how bloggers and youtubers make people like her seem less credible to the general public. Anyone can get online and pretend they're an authority, or pretend they have a credible source, or be paid to say the things they're saying and never report that they're being paid for it, and say whatever they want within the limits of the law and not be held accountable for it. She is actually held to a much higher standard, and her organization can face huge fines and legal consequences if she steps out of line the way many bloggers and youtubers do.

So maybe that's why you see a lot of mistrust - there are people poisoning the well so to speak.

That's a fair point. Just look at this recent controversy with YouTubers advertising gambling sites or accusations of corruption and favoritism at gaming giants like IGN and Polygon.

But I do hope people realize there are a lot of brilliant journalists, reporters, and critics out there that fulfill an important role. One of my heroes is Roger Ebert, whose reviews and essays helped me fall in love with movies. As an admirer of his and of the profession, I'd hate to see all critics dismissed as untrustworthy, out-of-touch, or otherwise unreliable.

Well that's the biggest problem, isn't it? How do you sort out who is legitimate and who isn't? In the terms of critics, how do you sort out who is actually giving their honest opinion, who is being paid for expressing an opinion they don't necessarily believe, and who is just saying what they think their fans want to hear? Unless there's some kind of whistleblowing often time we have no way of knowing.

For example, you mention Polygon. They use a clearly use "Social Justice lens" when reviewing video games, movies, and entertainment, knocking games that they feel have sexist or racist undertones for whatever reason, and celebrating those games that "empower women". That's not really an objective point of view, but it sure gives them more page clicks from the crowd that that type of thing appeals to. I can't knock Polygon for that, but does that make them a more or less credible source of games journalism? In my opinion it makes them less credible, and less reliable because that lens is subjective.

So how do I or anyone else tell who is legit?