june gloom on 18/4/2012 at 19:46
Rags like the Daily Mail are tabloids written to a specific audience -- the Joe Fuckface Sportsbar demographic in Daily Mail's case. Of course there's going to be obvious, intentional bias there, because that's the whole point. It's the same principle as Fox News or MSNBC -- it's all echo chamber bullshit. I'm talking about real, professional newspapers with real professional journalists. Like the Cincinnati Enquirer used to be.*
There's always going to be a slight liberal or conservative bias in every publication, because the people making those publications lean left or right. But most professional journalists do try to strive for neutrality, so they make adjustments. If facts get "cherry picked" it's usually because editors have to make decisions on what to cut for time and space.
* I've not been happy with the state of this paper the last few months, and that's largely because A) they're slapping a lot of AP wire stories in, wholesale, with few if any changes, which is a problem because AP has gotten sloppy; and B) the conservative bias is slowly starting to spin out of control. Cincinnati had two papers once, the Post and the Enquirer. The Post was the "liberal" paper. Then the Post disappeared; now it's all the Enquirer and without any proper competition it's started to crawl up its own asshole. Never is this more apparent than in the editorials page -- often, the only liberal viewpoint is a single letter to the editor usually written by a leftist crackpot rather than anyone sensible. I'm so sick of seeing George Will's smug little round face I could scream. Worse, the copy desk has shrunk significantly on top of them constantly fighting the new software and dealing with lazy designers. I'm glad I got out when I did.
faetal on 18/4/2012 at 19:53
Isn't publication bias kicked downstairs by editors? I never thought individual journalists would be bias machines by default, as they likely have a bit more self-respect than that having got the grades. Also, regardless of what we're told, it IS still largely supposed to be a noble profession, despite those who sully it. But at the end of the day, if you have a good job, with good pay and you want promotion, you want pay rises, you want to be assigned the good stories. If the person above you holding the reins wants the writing flavour to be of a certain polarity, you're either doing what they want and rising in the ranks, or you're stuck on shitty assignments while job hunting. At least, that's how I assume it works. There are papers like The Independent, who don't seem to have a clearly defined polarity, but I am guessing that there are still some editorial pressures at play.
I don't really read the news much as I get tired of constantly having to fact check in order to make sense of it, so perhaps my view of it is a tad 1 dimensional.
june gloom on 18/4/2012 at 20:07
That's... not really how it works, at least not in a good newspaper. Most reporters are there strictly for the day-to-day stuff, like a murder trial or local politics, because that's how you fill out a newspaper. We can't all be writing the big features.
Most journalists don't stay at the same publication forever. They move around, due to downsizes or new opportunities. Oftentimes it's their grunt work on boring shit that brings them those opportunities, because they've proven they can handle the daily grind of deadlines. Sometimes, they're given the opportunity to cover something really big, like a high-profile trial (as opposed to the standard "dude shot someone and now he's in court" stuff) and if they do a good job, that leads to more options down the road.
faetal on 18/4/2012 at 20:13
Yeah, I get that reporting the news is largely research, taking statements from press meetings, AP or interviews and then carving narrative around it, I'm angling more at opinion pieces, which is in essence what gaming journalism seems to be. In the gaming press, is there no pressure to err on the side of a more favourable review if the game being reviewed is from a company which is about to make its next big advertising spend etc..?
Or am I reading too much into it?
june gloom on 18/4/2012 at 20:21
Unfortunately you're on the nose there. There's a lot wrong with the gaming media, everything from increasingly shrinking memories to shit like the Kane and Lynch/Gamespot controversy. The average games journalist and their immediate superior might want to be honest if a game is mediocre, but the higherups are concerned about one thing and one thing only: advertising dollars. The bigger the site, the more this is a problem. It's why PC gamers flock to RPS, because at least we know the guys there will be straight with us.
Well, except for that abysmal Fallout New Vegas review... but that was just Quintin Smith being a twat. Bound to happen.
faetal on 18/4/2012 at 20:49
No one gets it right 100% of the time. It's all about finding who is wrong the least amount of the time I guess. This is why I get most of my game advice here, because for one reason or another, this place is filled with people who debate shit with a mixture of perspectives and I tend to come away with what I need to know. That said, if I've got a train journey ahead and nothing to read, I'll sometimes pick up PC Gamer just to see what's new. I'm almost always disappointed mind...
CCCToad on 19/4/2012 at 10:21
Funny how Dethtoll insists "there's no time to be biased" and then throws out multiple explanations for bias and misinformation later in the thread.
Not only which, I'd think doing enough research and investigation to ensure an unbiased presentation would take a lot more time than just spitting out talking points does.
june gloom on 19/4/2012 at 12:04
how many bullets have you dodged today ccctoad
heywood on 20/4/2012 at 00:44
Quote Posted by Koki
Out of curiosity, what was the deal with the ME3 ending?
You don't need to post spoilers(I probably won't get them anyway since I didn't play the games) but what was the schtick? "It was a dream all along"? "And then everybody died"? "No John, you are the demons"?
Short non-spoiler answer: The main appeal of the ME series is that player ethical choices have story consequences. The ME2 ending was great example of it. Bioware promised the same for ME3, but in the ending your choices don't matter at all. It builds up to a climax with the player making a crucial decision for the galaxy, and all choices result in a nearly identical cutscene ending. The other big problem with the ending is that the narrative becomes incongruent with everything that happened leading up to it, and it kind of ruined the story for a lot of people. It also features some 'WTF?' plot holes, a particularly bad application of skill points, and DX:HR style pushbutton ending selection. But these are secondary quibbles.
Longer answers here:
(
http://www.themarysue.com/everything-you-need-to-know-about-the-mass-effect-3-ending-controversy-as-spoiler-free-as-possible/) http://www.themarysue.com/everything-you-need-to-know-about-the-mass-effect-3-ending-controversy-as-spoiler-free-as-possible/
(
http://kotaku.com/5898743/mass-effect-3s-ending-disrespects-its-most-invested-players) http://kotaku.com/5898743/mass-effect-3s-ending-disrespects-its-most-invested-players
Ted O'Toole on 23/4/2012 at 16:12
I was going to make a thread entitled "Somewhat irrational pet-peeves", but since this thread is here and it's relevant...
Games journalism has, since the 2xxx's, been considered bottom rung in the industry, a lot of magazines off or online are filled with people who just weren't good enough for a job in a "legitimate" paper. Not all mind you, I guess most are genuine game lovers, regardless, many border incompetent.
1. Describing the controls of a game as fluent.
[INDENT]Able to express oneself easily and articulately: "a fluent speaker and writer on technical subjects"[/INDENT]
I know it seems petty, but it really gets to me. A journalist is supposed to be able to express their opinions beyond the adequate and causes the ignorant readers to reuse those words when talking about games with their friends, another thing that really annoys me.
"Durr I love this game, the controls are so fluent like"
When I attempt to correct them they say "I read it in a review shut up" it just...:mad::mad::mad:
Describing the controls of a game as fluid has been used at least since the early nineties and is likely what the writer misheard/misread when whacking his stumps at the keyboard in the first place.
2.I forget what it is, I'll edit it in when I remember. But it makes me :mad:
