The 1UP Show @ E3: Sony, MS, Nintendo

[Bodhesatva]

albionus said:
Well they need to be objective, but objective in the eyes of their consumers. 1up maybe used to be about being objective for all gamers but then they decided to be a little hard core so casual gamers stopped visiting causing 1up to become even more hard core causing the less hard core to stop visiting and so on leading to the decline you mentioned bodhesavata. So long as they make money it's no problem.

They are basically chasing the hard core audience the same way various liberal media outlets (well, essentially most of them) are chasing liberal viewers. If 1up keeps it up they could end up like many media outlets and drive away so many visitors that quality of reporting drops causing a slow permanent decline.

Either way, they still should be a little more objective. Hard core gamers would be a lot better off hearing reality from their media of choice. Then they wouldn't have meltdowns when they discover no one else thinks Sony had an awesome show and most think Nintendo had a great show.

Normally I'd agree with you -- whatever sells is, by definition, good capitalism -- but there actually are some pretty well-agreed upon rules in journalism. Theoretically, journalism is supposed to be about truth and fairness as much as it is about money, if not more so. 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Journalistic_ethics

Obviously those aren't legally binding, but they are almost universally recognized (enough that they have been codified in Wiki form). Right at the top, it says: "While various existing codes have some differences, most share common elements including the principles of — truthfulness, accuracy, objectivity, impartiality, fairness and public accountability"

Now, I totally agree that the journalistic code of ethics is, by many, considered boring, and that in reality many outlets consider their point to make money, not to actually be good journalists. I recognize that. I'm not saying that such tactics are illegal, nor am I even saying they can't make money: my point is that it's simply poor journalism, regardless of whether it makes money or not. 

Again, I know 1up is not alone in this regard. I know they aren't the first, nor the last, nor the worst. But saying there is a lot of other awful journalism doesn't change the fact that this is also awful journalism.