Gamespot has provided additional information to the firing of Jeff Gerstmann rumored to be caused by pressure from Eidos for a bad review. The article, written by Tor Thorsen (with his personal commentary here), knows that the article may not be believed and judged as damage control, "Guess what? You're right. It is damage control, because--let's face it--GameSpot has taken a beating over the past week. However, just because it's damage control doesn't mean we're being disingenuous or misleading." A valid point.
The article takes a Q&A approach to the controversy that repeats most of the previous comments that have come out about the issue.
I recommended reading the full text here.
To sum up it, Eidos had no hand in the firing, they did express displeasure at the review but to sles, not editorial. The pulled advertisements where done as schedule as based on the buy days of November 17th to 29th. Jeff was fired on November 28th, the exact reasons unable to reveal. The text for the Kane and Lynch review was altered because the negativity of the review didn't match its "fair" 6.0 score. The review video was removed (on November 14th) because of quality from a faulty microphone and limited game footage and has since been restored (youTube version here). GameSpot is currently doing an internal review to try and restore credibility with readres but "at no point in its history has GameSpot ever deviated from its review guildlines".
So there you go, GameSpots position on the issue. I personally wouldn't mind hearing Gerstmann's side of the story but he is bounded by the same legal issue that GameSpot is. They could sue him, he could sue them, it could get messy.
The whole thing still seems suspicious to me and the various rumblings suggest that sales has more of a say in editorial then it should. For instance, an analysis by Joystiq of the changes made to the orginial Kane and Lynch review made "significant changes to tone and focus", "edits...seem shoehorned in to point out potential positives", and "further edits that circumstantially seem designed specifically to placate Eidos.
In addition, 1UP is reporting that "series of advertising vs. editorial issues on GameSpot -- Sony Computer Entertainment America came down on the site for scoring Ratchet & Clank Future: Tools of Destruction a 7.5 just a few weeks prior to the Kane & Lynch incident -- and the Eidos Interactive situation was where they finally drew the line." The line apparently being Gerstmann as an example. I guess this goes back to the nebulous and undefined "tone" reasons.
Adding to that you have rumor of a mass resignations of GameSpot employed from a "devasted, gutted and demoralized" editorial staff because of "a lack of transparency from management."
Remember that and others are just a rumor but still jibes with other information on the net about sales interfering with management including a comment from Gerstmann "As for the future of game journalism, you asked if it's realistic for readers to expect a church and state separation between editorial and sales. Realistic or not, I think readers should demand that from a publication." He wasn't talking specifically about GameSpot but find it hard to believe its not a jab in their direction.
About the only conclusion you can draw is the water is mighty murky on how CNET, GameSpot and possibly Gerstmann conducts themselves from an editorially side. Since advertisments is a primary source of their revenue and management inevitiably coming from a sales background, its hard to believe that pressure isn't applied on a regular basis in some form or fashion and this was just a public spectacle of the dam bursting.
In the end, if GameSpot wants to save its reputation, full transparency is required with a clear and defined wall between sales and editorial. Probably in the best interst of the company to make sure the wolf isn't guarding the henhouse and make sure that those making the decisions on things of this nature cannot and will not be influenced by sales.
No comments:
Post a Comment