Games Journalism is not Dead, but gamers seem determined to kill it
59 C.E., Rome. Julius Caesar establishes the Acta Diurna as a public record of events, legal proceedings, and even gladiatorial results. Broadly thought to be the world’s first newspaper, we can thank Rome for, along with running water, road networks, and concrete, the origins of journalism. Since the Acta Diurna, journalism has grown and evolved, becoming an invaluable information outlet for government, a bastion against corruption, a propaganda machine, or a combination of all of these across the world and through the years. Journalism is one of the noblest and most underappreciated professions the world has ever known. The world is becoming smaller and smaller as technology and information become ubiquitous, meaning cutting through the noise for what matters is becoming more and more difficult. Journalists are the blade.
I won’t compare the subset of video game journalism to the larger profession and its indispensability to society, because talking about video games is inherently a bit frivolous in the grand scheme, but that doesn’t mean video game journalists are not professionals, and it certainly doesn’t mean they take their responsibility any less seriously. My thesis here, in case the title didn’t tip you off, is that video game journalism isn’t dead. Not by a long shot. It’s lazy and ignorant to say it is. I’ll try and defend my thesis here and let you decide for yourself.
Let’s start by establishing a working definition of “journalism”. Merriam-Webster defines it as “the collection and editing of news for presentation through the media” or “writing characterized by a direct presentation of facts or description of events without an attempt at interpretation.” Let’s go with the latter as the specific definition for the purposes of this article. Related, but not synonymous, is editorial content, which, by definition, does include a clear opinion or interpretation. So, we’ve defined journalism.
Let’s talk about the real world now. Humans are messy. Humans are really good at taking the ideal and deviating pretty wildly into un-ideal territory. Journalism is not immune to this phenomenon. I’m positive that, as you’re reading this, you could or have thought of multiple examples of a journalist failing to uphold this definition, whether by presenting outright lies or incomplete facts, or by allowing emotion or a personal agenda to skew how the information is presented. I have a few examples in mind, myself. That really sucks. What do we do with that? Let’s look to science for some ideas.
In Ancient Greece and Rome, early biologists (called “physiologoi” in ancient Greece) postulated the phenomenon of “spontaneous generation”, the idea that complex life was sometimes formed from inanimate objects.
The transmutation of species was refuted and disproved by Darwin and his updated theory of evolution.
It was thought as far back as Pliny the Elder that the thoughts of the mother while pregnant could cause birth defects.
Scientists used to believe that vision was a result of rays created by and coming out of they eyes instead of light being reflected into the eyes.
Doctors used to believe that bleeding patients was a way to cure many illnesses caused by an “excess” of blood in the body.
The doctor that proposed hand washing as a hygienic practice was ridiculed and eventually committed to an asylum where he died.
People of color were considered by scientific consensus for centuries to be inhuman and inferior.
Science has a long, almost as long as recorded history, record of getting things wrong, sometimes for no better reason than prejudice. We (at least we reasonable folks) don’t turn our backs on the whole endeavor in light of setbacks and disproven theories, we learn what data can be trusted and which researchers follow the data as it exists.
So let’s come back to the question at hand; what do we do about journalists that fail to uphold the definition of journalism? If we have learned anything from the long and winding scientific history of the world, we note the mistake, observe who made it, remember the effects and consequences of that mistake, and narrow our focus to those who seem to still be worthy of our trust while holding a healthily skeptical stance. Writing off the entire industry because a few journalists got it wrong is like throwing away your computer because the keyboard broke.
The next logical question is probably something like “well how do I know who I can trust, then?” You’re not a journalist, you don’t have all the time in the world or the connections to track down sources, verify information, and gather facts and data, so SOMEone has to do it. Who, then? I have two answers for this, one from an optimistic (some might call it naive) perspective, and one from a more grounded angle. Let’s start with optimism.
I have found, in my slightly over 40 years on this earth, that most people do 2 things pretty consistently. First, they act according to their own best interests. That may not sound optimistic, but I haven’t gotten to the optimism yet. It’s just true, people act in ways they believe will improve or at least preserve their safety and success. It’s deeply, evolutionarily ingrained. Second, people tell the truth. (There’s that optimism.) I said some might call this naive, and I agree to an extent, but I also believe it. People generally find either very limited utility or no utility at all in lying. This isn’t to say I don’t think anyone ever lies. I actually think everyone lies. I just don’t think those lies are usually malicious, devious, or even sometimes intentional. The downside of lying is almost always huge and rarely outweighs the upside, so I think most people don’t lie most of the time. Being caught lying destroys trust, turns the liar into a pariah, and earns a reputation of being untrustworthy. All of these being evolutionary disadvantages, I just think people mostly choose to forgo the risk. So, while I think a general skepticism is healthy, I have found that just believing people until they give you a reason not to keeps things simple and avoids unnecessary stress. Trust but verify, as the saying goes.
Now, the grounded answer, which is really kind of two answers. First, the less helpful part of this answer. The decision of who to trust is one only you can make. I know that’s not super helpful, which is why there’s a second part to this answer, but the responsibility needs to be noted. Your trust is something only you can award, so the matter of who ends up being the recipient is your responsibility. You should know who you trust and why, because your conduct based on the information they relay is also entirely your responsibility. Here’s the more helpful part of this answer: look for transparency in sources, find out whether or not they double or triple-check their information, see if they’ve ever had to issue a correction and how it was handled, evaluate how often they present different sides or at least nuance, and try to determine what is the purpose of their reporting. This is a short list and a list of ways to determine how trustworthy a journalist is could be pages on its own, but you get the idea (I hope). You have to do some work, but the payoff is worth it, I think. Again, trust but verify.
Ok, but what if they’re all bought and paid for by BIG VIDEOGAME? In the late 1940’s Doctor Theodore Woodward, a medical professor at The University of Maryland School of Medicine, had a problem. His students, bright and promising as they were, had a habit of letting their desire for novelty overshadow their training. So, Dr. Woodward coined a phrase to remind students that assuming complexity when no indication of complexity exists is a waste of time, resources, and endangers the patient’s well-being; "When you hear hoofbeats, think horses, not zebras.”
Now why the hell am I talking about doctors and zebras? If you’ve ever read about video games, watched videos about video games, or talked about video games, you’re probably aware of the existence of games journalism and reviews. As such, you’ve probably also come across sentiments like this; “I wonder how much the devs paid so-and-so to write that,” or “So-and-so is just so out of touch,” or “Wow, so-and-so is really pushing this narrative.” The catalyst for statements like this might be that a game received a lower or higher review score than someone felt it deserved, a piece about the cost of game development, reporting about how and when diversity consultants are employed by developers, or any one of an infinite number of industry happenings, notable, controversial, or otherwise. The thing is, these sentiments are often held by people that don’t understand journalism, the games industry, or the concept of nuance. Journalistic institutions have processes and procedures to keep journalism as close to objectivity as possible, to clearly label and separate editorial or sponsored content, and to be transparent about what those processes and procedures are. So, when something doesn’t sit right, be skeptical, for sure. Dig deeper, absolutely. But also remember, journalists are - ready for this? - people. And people have - hold onto your butt - unique perspectives. And sometimes, another person’s perspective will be - are you sitting down? - different from yours. Of course, it could also just be that the facts don’t line up with your understanding or beliefs. That sucks, too, but it’s a pretty solid indicator that the system is working. Now, we did distinguish editorial content from journalism earlier, so why bring up perspectives, here? Because people can’t not have a perspective. The plain truth is that a little individual perspective will always leak in. That’s why skepticism and doing the work to know as much about the person to whom you’re listening is so important. Regardless, the reality is that sometimes the facts are hard to swallow. Admitting we’re wrong never gets easier, but it is always instructive.
Reviews are opinions. Editorials are subjective. Journalism is human. There is no grand area-51-esque journalistic conspiracy to trick you into buying a “woke” game or spending money. There is no editorial black market where journalists peddle their reputations and integrity to nefarious developers with endless bribery funds. Save your tin-foil hat for the alien invasion. The risk of losing all credibility, an entire career, or a whole business is just not worth the potential payoff. So, next time you hear “that game got a six because the devs didn’t pay them enough” or “they’re just pushing their [insert current topic] agenda,” use your brain. Are you going to trust a trained, reputable professional? A random internet stranger? Neither? Your choice, but you should know why you’re making it.
Doctor Woodward would be appalled at the number of people jumping to “zebra” when “horse” is far more likely.