A Proposal to solve an issue of Conflicting Interest in Games Journalism

For those that don't know me, I'm just a dude who used to write game reviews for the California Literary Review before it shut down a year ago, and I'm currently writing for Ogeeku.com. I've done my best to cover the GamerGate story as impartially as I can, while still providing as much detail as the story needs (along with some commentary about some of what's been going on).



First here - http://ogeeku.com/2014/08/31/war-over-zoe-quinn-nowinners/

Then the follow up - http://ogeeku.com/2014/09/15/gamergate-quiet-4chan-front/



Like any sane observer to this whole mess, I just have to say that all the harassment and bickering going on over this has been saddening to witness. But that's not what I'm here to talk about.



I like to think of myself as a positive, solutions oriented person, so I want to discuss an idea to fix to at least one of the issues raised during this whole mess regarding the appearance and/or the actual occurrences of Conflicts of Interest in gaming media (hereafter referred to as COI, for brevity's sake). I've read from a number of developers and journalists who agree that this is something they'd like to talk about - just not now. They want to wait for everything to blow over, then this issue can be brought up again.



Well, if being kicked out of 4chan won't stop GamerGaters, I don't know what will. I think this is going to go on for some time to come, so why wait to talk about it?



To get to the point: there needs to be a public rebuilding, or at least a re-mortaring of "The Chinese Wall" (not my name, just what it's called - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_wall ) in Games Journalism. Whether or not you think this wall has been breached is fairly irrelevant. A fairly sizable portion of the gaming audience believes it has been, and in journalism, the appearance of lacking integrity is just as bad as an actual loss of it.



I propose that a way to do this would be to create a 3rd party distributor of Review and/or Preview code for Games Journalists to access, rather than the current system of having developers in either the AAA or indie sides of gaming interface directly with Journalists or publications.



The idea is simple in nature - an organization is founded to serve, well, a guild I suppose, of gaming journos and is funded by them. This independent 3rd party organization will be the repository of review/preview code, and they will distribute this code to members of the press who join the guild. If a developer or publisher doesn't send in the code or discs or what have you, then quite simply, they won't have their game(s) reviewed on time for their launch, since the journalists will be forced to purchase the game at retail and get the review out later.



Guild member sites are given a designation that signifies to readers that they are a part of this system (to borrow from the old Nintendo Seal of Approval) so readers can be better assured that their game review was filtered through this middleman in order to diminish possible COI and restore consumer confidence. If a game is reviewed through a direct relationship between a site and a developer or publisher, the Guild will have this on record, and this record will be publicly available on their site for perusal. In this way transparency is assured for the reader.



The guild is open to anyone who can pay the dues, and will receive submissions from both AAA publishers and Indie devs willing to pay a small fee. This should keep the guild operational, and allow for at least some gate-keeping of total crap from getting into the system.



The reasoning behind this comes from Film Review. I live in the shadow of Hollywood, and have several friends who are film critics and have even covered for a few of them and done some film review myself. Before a new film comes out, it is released to several small theaters in town, where critics come to screen them for review. While here in Hollywood much of this occurs on studio back-lots or small side theaters in office buildings and such (there is no doubt that studios are still in control), for the most part the studios are fairly open to who is let in to view these films as long as you're on a list of approved publications and/or writers. These screenings occur at set intervals, and it is beholden on the film reviewers to come in and watch the movie at the allotted time more than it is that the studio's marketing department must make an outreach to publications. They just notify folks at X movie plays at Y location at Z time.



That's the issue as I see it. Gaming publications have to form some kind of relationship with publisher PR or a developer to gain access. Then it is beholden on either the publisher or the developer to send the code or disc to the reviewers. The locus of responsibility changes who has the power in the relationship. It gives the developer and the publisher total control over the access of the game, which raises that shadow of doubt in the mind of the reader. If the locus of responsibility were changed to the publication, it changes the relationship, and removes at least some incentive for a publisher or a developer to hold a bad review against a publication.



It makes it more impersonal. More impartial. More just.



Now, I know there are already some practices in game review that do similar things. Larger studios just put reviewers on mailing lists to get access, and these reviewers get a nice impersonal access code or disc once on them. But to get on these lists the reviewers or publications must still start supplicant, asking the publishers or developers to get on the list. The relationship between developer and press still starts with the press completely at the mercy of the developer for access. Importantly for indie devs, this most often means the forging of at least some direct relationship with the developer, and considering the recent troubles, this is the last thing that skeptical readers of the gaming audience want to see.



By changing the nature of the relationship entirely, by going one step further than film review and in effect, create a blind system, you eliminate all doubt that any direct relationship needed to be forged. You assure the readers, you improve the independence of the game review publications (allowing them to say what they really feel without fear of reprisal), and you improve the system overall.



And sure, some games won't be sent in because the publishers know they're crap. Film studios do this too. They often don't pre-screen movies they think suck. It's just an early sign of a lack of confidence on the part of the publisher. It's going to, and does, happen in both industries.



As I see it, the system I'm proposing has few deficits, and several benefits.



- It removes doubt in the readers minds. Wouldn't it be nice to end all of the "how much were you paid by X company for this score?" comments?



- It frees publications from having to fear access loss if they slam a game or just don't go along with the company's advertising department notes.



- It allows publishers and devs a single location to send their code/discs to rather than networking with a number of outlets, saving them both time and money, as well as earning goodwill from the consumer for opting into this system.



Importantly, it matures the medium as a whole. If the readers always suspect that the press is in the pocket of studio PR or had to bunk with an indie dev to learn what they're working on, there will always be a cloud of suspicion in this industry. That cloud stifles games as both an art and as a commercial venture and it's been hanging around for some time. It's a nasty cloud and should be blown away if at all possible.



What I'm suggesting makes it possible.



I'm hoping GamerGaters can get behind this. I'm hoping developers can get behind this. I'm hoping press outlets can get behind this.



I'm hoping we can stop all of this fussing and fighting folks. And maybe, just maybe, make an improvement to the system along the way. I may be a fool to hope so much, and I might be, but it seems worse to try nothing than to try something.



Hell, I might be a total idiot and such a thing already exists. I've been out of the game - so to speak - for a bit now. If it is, tell me. But if it isn't? Then I see no downside to this, only an upside and some time and effort to implement it.



Rebuild the Chinese Wall.

Reply · Report Post