He has a valid point, but I can't see how him (fox dude) reviewing a pirated copy would strengthen piracy in any way. And thus the only negative is removed.
If he had put out a bad review, well... It would be much different.

Bod I'm not sure your argument is at all related to your example here. He wasn't fired for breaking an embargo or for inflating his score in order to get an early/exclusive review. He was fired for illegally pirating the movie in order to review it.

And I'm also not sure why you think it's up to the publishers to enforce journalistic ethics. They're not journalists. They're PR. It's up to the media to be ethical and not alter their writing/criticism based on conditions laid out by the publishers.

I think publishers rules of "if we are giving an early copy of the game don't post a bad review until the game is out" is borderline unethical but Konami's MGS4 rules were fine.

I mean whats wrong with saying "don't mention the surprise in the first cut scene, don't mention the final cut scene length in minutes (you mention it was long), etc" -- they didn't hurt spoiler free reviews at all ...

Imposing limits on reviewers is just plain stupid.. remember the controversy with gamespot on rachet and clank on the PS3.. and how SONY was "displeased" with the final score...

Its a free world/ well some of it is.. and if your product sucks it sucks..Deal with it.

I actually think there is more justification for this reaction with gaming than there is with movies. With a game a pirated copy can have bugs introduced by the patched/hacked executable that don't exist in the game. Not to mention the possibility of getting an incomplete build. In short, you may not even be reviewing based on legitimate issues in the game.

I suppose with a movie you might get an incomplete cut of the movie but at least there aren't going to be bugs added =P

? huh.

 I remember Insomnaic was dissapointed that they were critised for the game having too much variety when that's what platformers are about...

 (imagine if wrote a review of Halo 3 or GeOW and said it was bad becuase it had a lot of shooting in it... thats basically what the gamespot review does)

 As to your first point: again DK, I don't think you understand what I'm discussing. I'm questioning why we gaming fans encourage, goad and prod reviewers to bring us the earliest possible information about new projects at any cost, even using "leaks" and "rumors" and accepting exclusive reviews. That sort of behavior isn't encouraged or accepted in film criticism.

As to your second point, that's patently absurd. If I offer you free copies of my games if you give my games a good review, I can't then claim "I'm not doing anything wrong, but if you accept this free game, you are." Obviously it's wrong to accept bribes (or, if you'd prefer, "favors") just as it is wrong to offer them.

Keep in mind that journalistic ethics aren't binding, DK. Even for a journalist, there is no explicit penalty for breaking them. It's just a matter of respect. You can be as sleazy a journalist as you desire -- and there certainly are a good number that are willing to be very sleazy -- but you can't expect to be respected in return. Most of the sleaziest are considered just that: tabloid sleaze. Similarly, is Ubisoft's behavior, for example, illegal? No, things don't have to be illegal to be wrong. I can go around calling you awful names and telling you you're a terrible person all day long: that makes me a jerk, but it's not illegal (as long as I don't follow you around. That's harrasment. If I just say it to your face every time you happen to pass by me, that's completely within my rights). In the same way, publishers can offer "favors" to critics all day long, and there will be no legal consequences, but it's not ethical.

"By comparison, the first time a well known, 10 year veteran film reviewer posts an early review, he is fired immediately."

You're trying to use this example to prove your point, when it simply isn't true. He was fired for conducting illegal activity on the job, it had nothing to do with the review being early. If someone at IGN pirated a copy of the game a week early and reviewed it as an early exclusive, he'd be fired too. As would someone here, for that matter.

I get that you're arguing about the gaming industry focusing on early news and exclusives, but your supporting evidence doesn't say what you think it says.

The reason for the focus in gaming on early/exclusive news is probably simply that the gaming media is younger and thus more competitive. The movie industry has the big boys already established and fat and happy so there's no need to bring in extra traffic with early/exclusive news. It's also just a bigger industry to I'm sure harder to negotiate for extra perks like that.

You're speaking of journalistic ethics, not ethics in general. Journalistic ethics only apply to journalists. And frankly I think if the publishers are giving out free games they can attach whatever conditions they like to them, and if the journalists protest enough then the publishers who aren't jerks will get more coverage and attention and win out. Likewise the unethical journalists will eventually lose their credibility and their audience. It's a self-reinforcing system.

Media in other fields (sports, entertainment, politics) negotiate for exclusive interviews and try to get exclusive scoops all the time, and no doubt an exclusive interview results in more softball questions and exclusive access to some person or area results in more favorable coverage. I'm not sure why you think that's limited to the gaming media.