Game Journalist May Have Been Fired Over Negative Review

It started as a rumour post on Kotaku and a Penny Arcade comic strip: reviewer Jeff Gerstmann was fired from the gaming news site Gamespot for giving the co-op action title Kane and Lynch a low score, and snarking on the game in the review. The catch? The firing was dictated by games publisher Eidos, who didn't appreciate the veteran reviewer's tone in the piece. Their ad campaign (spread across the entirety of the Gamespot site) may have been used as a bargaining tool of some kind. Joystiq has a lengthy, detailed summary of this event and its implications, which is no longer technically a rumour. Gerstmann confirmed to the blog that he has been let go from the C|Net-affiliated site, but as of right now can't talk about the details. "The ramifications of the story, if true, are huge. Readers should fairly expect there to be an inviolable firewall between advertising and editorial in journalism, and game journalism (yes, that includes "just reviews") is no different. While our industry has had its fair share of accusations of impropriety, nothing so far has been proven beyond a shadow of a doubt. Giving a publisher the power to fire a senior editor is a line no outlet should be willing to cross." Update: 11/30 17:40 GMT by Z : The Joystiq story continues to be updated, and Tycho has put up what the PA guys heard about the tale in text. Joystiq also has an additional post about the story, with a brief (noncommittal) response from Gamespot.

Comments

Re:Nothing new here...

[goldaryn]

> Nothing new here... (Score:3, Insightful)
> no advertising money in Linux anyway
> just remember the "Golden Rule" folks

What's that, mention Linux in a completely irrelevant context to get modded up? Yeah we know.. Uh, Microsoft sucks!

I must have missed your point... because...

[DaedalusHKX]

I must have missed your point... because...your leftist bias is showing. You may want to chat with your buddies in China, they have job openings for propagandist authority worshippers, and you've so far been able to paint a lovely picture of it all.

Regarding profit... why should a man (or woman for that matter) not profit by his (or her) actions? Is it a crime to actually get a good outcome from one's work? In your world it is. Its okay, government taxation ensures that only those who step outside their boundaries actually achieve any form of actual "profit". That is a given since 'income' is legally translated as 'profit' and since your entire 'income' is taxable, that must mean your time is "worthless" because all your salary is 'profit' :) Amazing? Not really. Its the way the collectivist/socialist (and at this point hybridized fascist) taxation system works. Your entire salary is based on the fact that your time is worthless so you're actually having a total income because your work is actually "worthless".

Cheers buddy. You already have what you advocate, you just can't recognize it.

Re:I must have missed your point... because...

[spun]

Thanks for the ad hominem. It shows everyone here what I already knew: you have no debating skills and your values are as bankrupt as most so-called individualists.

Everyone should profit from their actions. They should not profit from the actions of others. Social anarchists believe that. Individualist anarchists think they should have the right to profit from others, if they have the power to do so. That is why they do not like people banding together to protect their own interests. They would rather that everyone stand on their own, to be taken like sheep and sheered one by one.

You spoke of "the rights of the collective" but what that really means is, "the rights of the individual, as protected by the collective," and you obviously hate it when people have the power to protect themselves from your selfish greed.

I can't even follow your twisted logic about profit, income, and taxes. Maybe I didn't drink enough libertarian Kool-aid. "Income is profits so taxes are bad and your time is worthless!" Riiiiight, okay buddy, whatever you say.

Re:I must have missed your point... because...

[DaedalusHKX]

Obviously you speak on things of which you have no knowledge. If you had you would be aware of how legal language in the tax code works. Try it some time, and work on it, the Internal Revenue Code is a BIG text and the definitions are at the last portion, not up front, so you misunderstand it if you read it without the definitions ripped out sitting in front of you and being looked up every time you read. But what do I know, I actually read the damn thing.

Speaking of ad-hominem... I don't need to "defeat" you in a debate. That is your issue to deal with, and you will do it alone. I don't see how I take advantage of others, but I'm sure you'll show me how those people who chose to live off food stamps are being ripped off by evil old me. Seriously buddy, you've got a lot of things you should experience before deciding that the path you chose is the only one. I've tried a lot in my years, ephemeral as they may be, and I'm pretty sure of the path I walk. Are you?