Olympic Torch, Gerstmann Sage End, IRS, and Blogging

Olympic Torch History - A brief history of the Olympic torch relay, which began as a way for Hitler to prove the perfection of Germany. Fortunately it didn't end there.

Gerstmann Saga Claims Its Creator - The firing of Jeff Gerstman last year set off a storm on the internet for showing the incestuous relationship between game publications and the game media. Since the firing (possibly unrelated) CNET has not done well financially, Gamespot's reputation has taken a massive hit and lost its core reviewer members. For legal reasons the full story of what has happened has never been released but the rumored cause of the whole PR fiasco is Josh Larson whose background is sales yet was in charge of editorial. The result was the separation between the two was all but destroyed. This is denied of course but experience has shown me when managers don't know something, rather then learn from those that do, they fall back on what they think they know. In his case, money and sales. His failure finally led to the results most felt was necessary to repair CNET's reputation, sadly too little too late. Gerstmann has moved on though, starting a new venture called Giant Bomb which appears to be a mixture of Joystiq and Gamespot but it’s too new to say what the final result will be.

Avoid an IRS Audit - Taxes are do very soon, just a few hints to avoid getting red-flagged.

Stressful World of Blogging - Story about how stressful the professional blogging world can be in the quest to be first on the story (personally I never notice who is first). Since I am an amateur I don't have to worry about the stress but nor do I make any money so there you go. Helps that I use this shortened blogging method to do everything at once so it doesn't interfere with my paying job.

Elm Street, Hobbit, Gerstmann, and XBox 360 Laptop

Englund Out - Last week it was announced that A Nightmare on Elm Street remake is in the works. The ill-fated "re-image" that has failed in over a decade. Just to add to the agony, it appears the original Freddy Krueger, Robert Englund, will not be returning the role he helped make iconic. Not surprising really, but still a disappointment.

Del Toro, Hobbit Deal Out? - There are plans to do Hobbit films, plans for Peter Jackson to exec produce and what reported as lock for Guillermo Del Toro to direct. Apparently that may no longer be the case as negotiations are still ongoing and nothing is set in stone. Basically it sounds like he wants his payday and New Line maybe balking. Keep in mind that Lord of the Rings revenue gave Jackson the money to create Weta (think ILM) so the money involved is in the hundreds of millions.

Another Gamespot resignation - The fallout from the Gerstmann fiasco continues as another long standing GameSpot editor has resigned due to the circumstances. The new EIC, Ricardo Torres, continues his PR campaign to repair the website's reputation, specially pointing out that Josh Larson (rumored to be the cause of the whole thing) is no longer wearing the editor and sales duel hats that caused the destruction of the editorial wall. Still, all is quiet on the CNET front so I have yet to hear anything that suggests it will not be business as normal, regardless of what the EIC says.

XBox 360 Laptop - The Xbox 360 in a slick laptop as created by modding genius Ben Heckendorn.

1Up Blog Entry on Gertzmann Controvery

The GameSpot controversy continues in little hiccups hear and there as editors are starting to quit CNET and the site. Recently 8 year long reviewer for the site, Frank Provo quit as did Editor Alex Navarro. Both inferred that the Gerstmann controversy and the merging of sales and editorial as the cause.

Sam Kennedy, a 1Up editor, recently posted a blog entry that does an excellent job of summarizing this whole mess, provides some behind the scenes insight on what causes the fiasco (the guy in charge of advertisement is also in charge of editorial content) and explains why this matters.

Be sure to read the entry entry here.

Sadly, its further proof that the once fantastic gaming website's content is up for bids to whoever want to pay for it. The sites behavior is clearly tolerated by CNET and more then likely duplicated on other CNET owned websites. In my opinion, as a result of this and other behavior, any and all content from CNET owned websites should be considered bought and they are no longer a source of reliable information.

GameSpot Responds to GerstmannGate

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.

GameSpot Posts Gerstmann Firing Article

Gamespot finally released an official article about the Gerstmann firing. The article does not provide any additional insight in the controversy instead simply stating he is not with the company, they "wish him nothing but good luck in his future endeavors" and that "CNET Networks nor GameSpot has ever allowed its advertising business to affect its editorial content" while reiterating that legalities and company policy are preventing them from speaking further on the issue.

Based on the rumors and comments from across the web including past and present GameSpot employees, it seems that while article says there is a separation of church and state, that doesn't seem really true as it seems the editors are more then a little away of the impact their reviews have on sales, suggesting at the very least a rather sizable leak in the wall.

CNET's Buzz Out Loud podcast was the first CNET related site to break the silence which could be summed up as "[Human resources is] not going to come and tell us why a dude got fired." This after a two hour mandatory meeting allegedly about the podcast delayed the meeting. How you can have a two hour meeting but apparently share zero information is beyond me. Basically the hosts reiterate their support of CNET and feel "that CNET will never dismiss someone based on outside advertiser pressure."

Regardless, the article nor podcast is not reassuring and there is definitely something going on behind the scenes that can only have a negative effect on how GameSpot and CNET site editors perform their jobs. Read the sites but sadly the information contained within is buyer beware from now on.(source)

Gerstmann / Gamespot Controversy Update

Its Monday and sadly for CNET and it's site Gamespot, the controversy surrounding the firing of Jeff Gerstmann for the rumored reason of a bad review costing the site thousands in ad revenue continues unabated and seems to be getting worse. The internets exploded over the weekend with comments all over the place, Eidos forums shutdown, and many Gamespot employees past and present carefully providing their own opinions. A list of those can be found here, towards the bottom.

More importantly the mainstream press such as USA Today, The Mercury News, The Guardian, and Dallas Morning News is starting to sniff around the edges of the stories with their own blogs commenting on it. A first step for greater unwanted attention.

Now people have planned Blackout Monday, where people refuse to visit or link to Gamespot and CNET sites. Planned at the last minute, doubt it worked but doesn't means later plans will not. There is also a plan to protest at CNET headquarters in San Francisco from December 8th to 10th.

Gertsmann has somewhat commented further on this controversy with Joystick but remains mum on specific details due to legal reasons. Basically he says he was shocked by the firing, stands by his reviews, and determining what he will do next.

Basically this story isn't going away like CNET wants it to. They need to say something or do something to repair their reputation because at this moment the rumors say that reviews and information can be bought. That makes their sites worthless. I personally have stopped listening to their podcasts and stopped visiting their sites for this reason. I am happy to change my mind but the silence is deafening.

GameSpot Editor Confirms Firing Reasons

The gaming sphere has blown up in the last 24 hours because of the firing of Jeff Gerstmann for a bad review of an Edios title that cost the website thousands in ad revenue. Gamespot, CNET, and Edios have all refused to comment on the story accept to say they did nothing wrong but when pressed for details will switch to "no comment". The end result is readers have no choice but to assume that the line between site business and site editorially simply doesn't exist and that favorable news and reviews are available to anyone who wants to buy them.

Valleywag is now reporting that an unconfirmed Gamespot editor has pretty much confirmed the above assumptions in a post on their forums. The text is reproduced below.

We're very clear in our review policies that all reviews are vetted by the entire team before they go live - everything that goes up is the product of an entire team's output. Our freelancers are especially guilty of making snide comments, but those are always yanked before the review goes live, because everyone in the office reads these reviews and makes sure they're up to our standards before they get put up.

If there was a problem with his reviews, then it would've been a problem with the entire team. Firing him without telling anyone implies that anyone else on this team can be fired at the drop of a hat as well, because none of us are writing any differently or meaner or less professionally than we were two years ago before the management changed. I'm sure management wants to spin this as the G-Man being unprofessional to take away from the egg on their face that results after a ten-year employee gets locked out of his office and told to leave the premises and then no one communicates anything to us about it until the next day.

This management team has shown what they're willing to do. Jeff had ten years in and was fucking locked out of his office and told to leave the building.

What you might not be aware of is that GS is well known for appealing mostly to hardcore gamers. The mucky-mucks have been doing a lot of "brand research" over the last year or so and indicating that they want to reach out to more casual gamers. Our last executive editor, Greg Kasavin, left to go to EA, and he was replaced by a suit, Josh Larson, who had no editorial experience and was only involved on the business side of things. Over the last year there has been an increasing amount of pressure to allow the advertising teams to have more of a say in the editorial process; we've started having to give our sales team heads-ups when a game is getting a low score, for instance, so that they can let the advertisers know that before a review goes up. Other publishers have started giving us notes involving when our reviews can go up; if a game's getting a 9 or above, it can go up early; if not, it'll have to wait until after the game is on the shelves.

I was in the meeting where Josh Larson was trying to explain this firing and the guy had absolutely no response to any of the criticisms we were sending his way. He kept dodging the question, saying that there were "multiple instances of tone" in the reviews that he hadn't been happy about, but that wasn't Jeff's problem since we all vet every review. He also implied that "AAA" titles deserved more attention when they were being reviewed, which sounded to all of us that he was implying that they should get higher scores, especially since those titles are usually more highly advertised on our site.

I know that it's all about the money, and hey, I like money. I like advertising because it pays my salary. Unfortunately after Kasavin left the church-and-state separation between the sales teams and the editorial team has cracked, and with Jeff's firing I think it's clear that the management now has no interest at all in integrity and are instead looking for an editorial team that will be nicer to the advertisors.

When companies make games as downright contemptible as Kane and Lynch, they deserve to be called on it. I guess you'll have to go to Onion or a smaller site for objective reviews now, because everyone at GS now thinks that if they give a low score to a high-profile game, they'll be shitcanned. Everyone's fucking scared and we're all hoping to get Josh Larson removed from his position because no one trusts him anymore. If that doesn't happen then look for every game to be Game of the Year material at GameSpot.

Now this post could turn out to be false but it has an authentic feel to it. Its sounds like the actions a suit would make, where numbers are the driving force and not much else. Its also clear that CNET needs to provide a comprehensive response to this event and a course of action that can restore trust back in their websites. Obviousily the first step is fire Josh Larson for gross incompetence for even creating this pretty predicable PR disaster and the second is create rules that establish a seperation of editoral from sales. Anything less is an improper response to this controversy.

GameSpot Reviewer Fired for Angering Advertiser

Its kind of assumed concept in the world of journalism, whether online, TV or print and that's the journalistic endeavors are separated from the business and advertising goals. In other words, a company may buy advertisement but they are not buying good press. Its also assumed by many that is not 100% of the case and that business goals do leak into journalistic ethics (see Newsweek's love issue to Amazon) but at least its usually blatant enough that you can make a judgement call on what you are reading.

However, there are times when the entire facade is blown away and confirms our suspicions and further erodes the trust between journalists and their readers. That is the case with the controversy surround GameSpot.com who fired Editorial Director Jeff Gerstmann, a 10 year veteran of the company.

The theory is he was fired for his 6.0/10 review of "Kane & Lynch" which resulted in Edios pulling hundreds of thousands of dollars in ad revenue. Information leaked form someone working close to Edios is he was fired for "unprofessional reviews and review practices" and the "tone" of his reviews (whatever that means). Judge for yourself and read the review (here and here) and watch the video version below which was pulled from GameSpot.

Currently these theories cannot be confirmed. Gertzman briefly commented on the story by saying he is unable to comment, "This probably won't come as much of a surprise, but I'm unable to comment on the rumors surrounding my termination."

CNET, owner of Gamespot, did release a short statement that didn't address this controversy directly "GameSpot takes its editorial integrity extremely seriously. For over a decade, Gamespot and the many members of its editorial team have produced thousands of unbiased reviews that have been a valuable resource for the gaming community. At CNET Networks, we stand behind the editorial content that our teams produce on a daily basis."

The news of the firing came about last night as a result of an early release of a Penny Arcade strip that comments on the firing. Tycho later released a statement on the controversy. As a result of the strip, the news of the firing has blazed across the gaming websites everywhere with few pleased with the news. It even resulting in Edios closing their forums.

So to sum up, all that is known is that Jeff Gurtzmann from Gamespot has been fired. The theory is the cause is because of a bad review of a game that resulted in lost advertising dollars but the site owners are claiming the real cause is "tone" of his reviews. Edios, CNET and Gamespot have refused to comment directly on the story and will not allow Gurtzmann to do so either.

Why is this important? Well, this confirms that many of us suspect but don't want to believe, that advertisement dollars drive editorially content and can buy positive reviews of products. This has a chilling effect that post effects current employees of CNET's network of websites and also the readers of the those websites.

For the employees that provide reviews, articles and content for the site, I can't imagine that if you currently work for a CNET owned website that this doesn't have a negative effect on how you review and write about products and companies that do business with CNET or under consideration to do business with them. If Apple buys advertisement does that mean that CNET reviewers need to consult the business end to determine what the iPhone review should be? Oh wait, Nintendo just bought advertisement space, should the next game review for the Wii be a 9.5 or a 10? What if the advertisement arm is trying to pursue new business, does that mean reviewers have to check all reviews and stories through them to verify it will not effect the closing of a sale? If I was currently employed there that would be steps I would consider as not doing so apparently can cost you your job.

For the readers, its an issue of trust. When you look up reviews you want an honest opinion, warts and all of a product so you can make a sound decision. If its an article about a company and what its doing, you want the truth, not spin.

As of now, thanks to this controversy, you can not trust any of the content on Gamespot or any of CNET owned websites and publications. I include all of CNET because we simply don't know if this was a decision internal to Gamespot or is part of a company wide policy for advertisement revenue. Until CNET clarifies and explains exactly what happens (and allows Gerstmann to do the same), defines what the hell "tone" of a review means (because I don't see a problem in the reviews I read or seen), and makes it clear what steps it will take to keep the advertising arm firewalled from the content arm it is my belief that CNET and any of its websites can be trusted as a source of news, reviews and information as we simply don't know what has been bought off and what hasn't.