Jeff Gerstmann axed by C|Net for panning an advertiser's game -- seriously bad juju
For those on the outside, it began with a Penny Arcade comic (warning, slightly strong language).
Then rumors started swirling, and were confirmed by the comic's authors, that the comic was true -- Jeff Gerstmann, editor-in-chief and 11-year veteran of the gaming site GameSpot, had been axed for panning the game Kane & Lynch, an Eidos Interactive title that was being heavily advertised on the GameSpot site at the time.
Naturally, Eidos weren't pleased that the site they had poured thousands of dollars into was pooh-poohing their product. But what happened next sent a shockwave through gaming journalism.
C|Net, the owners of GameSpot, shattered the wall between editorialism and marketing and unceremoniously dumped Gerstmann for the "tone" of his review.
Multiple industry insiders have come forward to confirm these events, and I'll leave the Googling to those who want more proof. Valleywag offers an account of the debacle from another, supposed GameSpot editor (note: strong language); and it certainly has the ring of truth about it.
So what can gamers do about this, if they value integrity in gaming journalism? First, obviously, you can boycott Kane & Lynch. That shouldn't be hard, as the game is seriously flawed. But on top of that, you can boycott those responsible for the mess -- C|Net and all the sites they own:
gamespot.com
gamefaqs.com
metacritic.com
gamerankings.com
cnet.com
news.com
I realize this may seem like a tempest in a teapot to those who don't pay much attention to gaming. But there's a larger issue at play here -- specifically, Do journalists answer to their readers or to their advertisers? In most every other industry -- movies, for example -- this question has been satisfactorily answered. (Think a movie reviewer would be let go for giving Fantastic Four a less-than-glowing assessment?) It needs to be answered definitively here too.
Get updates with RSS
Be the first to know about new products and free stuff from IconBuffet. Subscribe to our RSS feed:
Find work or post a listing at Authentic Jobs.
JBVisions on Dec 03, 2007
I've deleted my CNet account.
elnitido52 on Dec 03, 2007
Wow! Today is the D-day...first Facebook...now CNet too?...what's next?...
austingirl on Dec 03, 2007
I'm on my way over there to delete, as well.
Granf on Dec 03, 2007
attack of the evil vigilantes! change your WEP's!
*deletes account*
nickpixel
on Dec 03, 2007
This dominated Digg and Reddit all weekend and still seems to be picking up steam. My prediction is that, once this peaks (CNet is still denying), CNet and GameSpot will end up throwing someone under the bus very publicly to try to save face.
What's ironic is that by trying to cater to one ad account (if that's what they were doing), they may hurt their advertising business overall. This could damage the credibility of all future reviews (even if they are honest) which will lowers traffic and ad revenue. It could also cause other companies to shy away from advertising with CNet/GameSpot since those companies won't want to piss off their consumer base or take the chance that a good review of one of their products is discounted because they're also paying for advertising.
If the accounts are true, CNet made a decision that was not in their customers best interests and that same decision is, as is usually the case, also a bad business decision. Since the gov't isn't involved, I'm sure it will work itself out in a karmically correct way.
renbot on Dec 03, 2007
@elnitido52 - What happened with Facebook?
louiemctool on Dec 03, 2007
you know, this shouldn't surprise me.
these are the same people who still recommend (and give five stars to) AdAware 2007, despite the fact that is the most bug-ridden filth i've ever installed on my machine...
time to stop recommending download.com, i think...
:(
dyar on Dec 03, 2007
time to stop recommending download.com, i think...
How is that download.com's fault, they merely redistribute what the manufacturers upload to them.
louiemctool on Dec 03, 2007
yeah, but when the editors STILL give software like adaware a high rating, combined with cnet's general attitiude, i no longer place much faith in their impartiality.
so take it as you will. i don't trust them anymore, so i WILL not recommend them again.
:|
manon1165
on Dec 03, 2007
what nickpixel said (so well)...
elnitido52 on Dec 03, 2007
@renbot - Check your box...
Winnopeg on Dec 03, 2007
I think CAD has a good point on this subject...
gswd on Dec 03, 2007
I guess it is good that I get my reviews from MaximumPC. They very clearly state that the advertising department and the editorial department are separate within the organization. And it has happened that they pan a product that is advertised in their mag.
iconmaster on Dec 03, 2007
It's really more than a rumor at this point. Multiple industry insiders have lent credence to the events that I've described. There are some details which still aren't clear, but the fact that Gerstmann was fired specifically over the review is not really at issue at this point, for anyone who's been following the event closely.
BrownFreelance on Dec 03, 2007
@elnitido52: What did happened with Facebook?
KatieK on Dec 03, 2007
I've been reading EGM (1UP if you prefer) for years now. I think they're really the only video game reviewers I trust.
Gamefaqs is the only one of Iconmaster's list I've ever used. I think I can SOMEHOW manage to get the occaisonal game hint somewhere else.
iconmaster on Dec 04, 2007
I actually started typing gamefaqs.com into my address bar last night (needed a bit of help on Galaxy), then stopped myself. :)
iconmaster on Dec 05, 2007
Here's a great Level Up article on the topic.
Some quotes:
"The reality is this: publishers generally hold the enthusiast press in utter contempt, and they have for a long time."
"Gerstmann's termination is merely the symptom; the disease is the contempt in which you are held by any publisher who would attempt to intimidate you over your opinion and any business operation that refuses to support you in the face of such intimidation."