GameSpot denies Eidos pressured firing of Gerstmann
We just got off the phone with Sarah Cain, a CNET spokesperson who wanted to amend CNET's previous statement to Joystiq on the recent firing of executive editor Jeff Gerstmann. While reiterating that CNET does not discuss personal employee matters with the press, Cain said directly that "we do not terminate employees based on external pressure from advertisers." When asked specifically about whether any such pressure was even attempted on Eidos' part, Cain had no comment. We're still waiting for a response to multiple e-mail requests for comment by Eidos PR.While we had Cain on the line, we also asked her about the odd disappearance of Gerstmann's video review of the game from the GameSpot site. She responded by pointing out a note at the bottom of the still-running text review for the game, which states that "this review has been updated to include differences between the Xbox 360 and PS3 versions and a clarification on the game's multiplayer mode."
When pressed for clarification, Cain said that this note applied to the video review as well. "At the bottom of the post of the [text] review we made a note that we have updated the review, and we made those decisions based on our own editorial standards," she said. "It was our decision to take down the [video] review." Given this justification, we can't help but wonder why GameSpot couldn't just edit the video review, as they did the text version. Why remove the entire thing if the problem was really just a "clarification?" When asked just that question, Cain reiterated her initial statement.
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 2)
gonk @ Nov 30th 2007 5:48PM
more lies, and she wasn't allowed to tell you anything that wasn't on her prepared cue cards
Jamie @ Nov 30th 2007 5:54PM
It's more PR BS... She only repeats what she's told to... She wasn't the one who fired him so she can just say what she's been told to say... Even if the truth is totally different.
Lone Starr @ Nov 30th 2007 5:53PM
This is quite the unexpected turn of events.
C.A. @ Nov 30th 2007 5:57PM
*cough..yeah right...cough* Excuse me, I'm allergic to bs.
Fox318 @ Nov 30th 2007 6:07PM
And I thought I was the only one.
Captain Obvious @ Nov 30th 2007 5:58PM
Anyone have the text (linkage??) of the original review so we can compare it to the updated one?
aaron_k7 @ Nov 30th 2007 6:00PM
Maybe he was just too fat...
Jhongerkong @ Nov 30th 2007 6:54PM
Maybe youre just not funny
upz @ Dec 3rd 2007 11:47AM
Yikes. Since when did the internet become a bastion of political correctness? Joystiq'ers poke fun at Gabe Newell in every thread, but suddenly everone finds fat jokes offensive because Jeff Gerstmann has become our recent Ayatollah?
"You don't call retarded people retards, that would be in bad taste."
- Michael Scott, The Office
aaron_k7 @ Dec 3rd 2007 12:04PM
Thanks upz, I've never been one for the politically correct scene; it was just a silly joke. The Michael Scott quote is priceless...well said!
a @ Nov 30th 2007 6:00PM
BS.
Look, my cousin worked as a producer of TV news 15 years ago (local new). They ran a informative story on if you should buy or lease you car (leasing a car was new). Its typically better to buy. The story ran, the car dealers that advertised went ape and calls there ad reps, my cousin shows up for work the next day and gets read the riot act.
Bottom line, always carefully consider the source when reading a review of an article that has an ad for the same product. (Why consumer reports is good and expensive)
The Purveyor of Justice @ Nov 30th 2007 6:46PM
This is why I think the review system is mostly...broken. I think there are other unseen effects; such as a game getting unusually high scores, simply out of fear that the company might pull their advertisements, etc.
roland @ Dec 1st 2007 4:37AM
Consumer Report also doesn't run any ads, so they aren't obligated to write anything good about anybody.
rickythatsme @ Nov 30th 2007 6:01PM
bs. i mean, what else can they say? admit to the truth and go out of business? riiight.
Gilbert Davis @ Nov 30th 2007 6:02PM
Funny how this is working out. Over at Digg the story isn't even on the front page and comments have been disabled 11 or 12 hours ago with 2649 diggs. I tried to add a comment and it took it but didn't show it. Just like the Eidos forum site being all 'cleaned up' - Censorship being accomplished in many different and interesting ways. Very sad.
gonk @ Nov 30th 2007 6:05PM
does digg take eidos money?
Fox318 @ Nov 30th 2007 6:05PM
Its still working for me...
http://www.digg.com/gaming_news/Rumor_Gamespot_Editor_Fired_Over_Negative_Kane_Lynch_Review
Einhanderkiller @ Nov 30th 2007 6:25PM
Uh, the story is still on the front page, and comments are working fine.
http://digg.com/all/popular/24hours
ssuk @ Nov 30th 2007 7:12PM
If you aren't using Firefox, comments are currently broken for you. It's been brought to the attention of Digg admins though, should be fixed soon.
Einhanderkiller @ Nov 30th 2007 9:16PM
I'm using Firefox 3 beta 1 and comments work fine.
I'm guessing this problem is confined only to Firefox 2 users?
Spirit-of @ Nov 30th 2007 6:04PM
What is Eidos going to about all the other lukewarm reviews for Kane and Lynch out there?
kinshadow @ Nov 30th 2007 6:49PM
Perhaps they'll hire a pair of hitmen?
ssuk @ Nov 30th 2007 7:13PM
Well, they tried that to actually sell the game and look where it got them...
Ben Marlowe @ Nov 30th 2007 6:04PM
I bet a little cricket sits on her shoulder and tells her she can be a real girl if she wishes upon a star.
BPM - The Return @ Nov 30th 2007 6:07PM
The whole situation smells fishy to me, personally.
And I'm allergic to fish.
Pat k @ Nov 30th 2007 6:10PM
C'mon, That is pure PR Bullshit! What it comes down to is what we've seen on the site... Eidos got pissed at Jeff they pulled the advertising, and Jeff gets fired.
Don't go by bs PR talk, you have to look at the motive behind it. Would they tell you the truth? Why would they? Would it be in their best interest? Probably not
So why bother even asking for a response, I'd trust neogaf any day over that woman.
Fact of the matter is Gamespot has a very strict policy on changing reviews, and despite what she said they "added" to the review, the words used in the review tend to speak much more favorably to the game then previously stated.
magus-21 @ Nov 30th 2007 6:19PM
My God, it's guilty until proven innocent for all of you, isn't it?
All we have on EITHER side of the story are rumors and hearsay. Go string up your lynches elsewhere and wait for something credible to come along.
ComicShaman @ Nov 30th 2007 6:50PM
Um... no, that's not all there is on either side. There are actions that are easy to document, like Gerstmann being fired in the wake of a bad review for Kane & Lynch. There's the fact that Gamespot has gotten big advertising from Eidos for this game. There's the fact they took down the video review and all notable links to the print review, and rewritten it (to whatever extent... but it doesn't read like a 6.0 now, does it?). There's the fact that Gamespot is scrubbing and censoring and generally trying to pretend nothing is happening.
None of that is hearsay or rumor.
On the other side, we have a PR person doing what PR people do, which is wave a little flag and say "Move along, nothing to see here." If you really take that sort of thing at face value, then I have a bridge to sell you.
Random1448 @ Nov 30th 2007 6:20PM
meh, I say good riddance to Gerstmann.
Bucket @ Nov 30th 2007 6:24PM
Sounds like a classic case of CYA (Cover Your Ass).
Hrairoo @ Nov 30th 2007 6:30PM
Well of course GameSpot and CNet are denying it. Imagine Eidos' reaction if they didn't?
Shumina @ Nov 30th 2007 6:37PM
Bullshit.
At what point is the "wink and nod" tactic of PR going to finally lose purchasing power over the reader's drive for a simple explanation for events whose results scream louder than any mission statement? C|net isn't losing much business from me since I didn't subscribe to many of their services and subsidiaries, but what I did bring to the table I'm taking away.
Reporting that receives its revenue from advertising is sleeping with the enemy. The real issue here is that this wasn't even hardcore reporting; this was a review (and from what I understood, an honest one). A review comes from a place of bias. That's what a review is. To be canned for doing your job (i.e. making your biased view known to the public) is ridiculous in the extreme. Were I him, I'd count my blessings that I was now free to find more amiable persuits.
mernmern @ Nov 30th 2007 6:38PM
You should have asked her why gamespot's forums have been taken down "for maintence". Conspiracy! ... or maybe not.
mernmern @ Nov 30th 2007 6:40PM
... spelling is overated... "maintenance".
fredrik @ Nov 30th 2007 6:38PM
in during bullshit
Nguyen @ Dec 1st 2007 2:05AM
in after a b-tard actually uses "in during" on a joystiq post.
sorry i couldn't help myself...
tc @ Nov 30th 2007 6:40PM
What does it take to convince people?
sure, i'm not jumping to believe that the firing was just coincidental timing or anything. But if we're instantly shooting down direct statements from people representing the different parties...well, what else is there?
Sizer @ Nov 30th 2007 6:47PM
Interesting question. I'm not sure there's anything that they could say that would convince me... just like I'm not sure they could convince me the sky is green either.
But this doesn't even reach that level of metaphysical pondering. It's obvious stonewalling.
Will @ Dec 1st 2007 9:09AM
What would have 'convinced' me would be if they hadn't took down and rewritten his reviews, and fired him. This is like asking what could Hitler say to convince people he's peaceful after invading poland... there's nothing they can say to convince us they didn't because THEY ALREADY DID IT
tc @ Dec 1st 2007 12:13PM
Will, that seems like a false analogy to me. There was no hearsay or conjecture about Hitler moving into Poland. There were photographs etc. of German troops inside the country.
But out here in the land of the internets you don't get that type of evidence. We get statements from parties involved. While yes, they could easily be false, there really isn't anything else to rely on.
Sizer @ Nov 30th 2007 6:43PM
There's a great word for people like this: 'spokesholes'.
Max @ Nov 30th 2007 6:45PM
I wonder what kind of review Superman 64 would get if it came out today on Gamespot.
nick @ Nov 30th 2007 6:47PM
Something isn't right...
Why doesn't GameSpot just come out and say it wasn't anything involving Eidos?
Why doesn't Eidos say it wasn't related to us?
If GameSpot or Eidos don't comment on recent events, stating it's not what we believe, then I have no other conclusion than to believe the rumor is true.
Until that state otherwise, I don't believe this is going away.
The only other people that can shed light on this siutation is Jeff or another GameSpot staffer. If I'm not mistaken, at least one other GameSpot staff has rumored to have quit.
Nguyen @ Dec 1st 2007 2:16AM
It was Tim Tracy, but this forum has some people claiming he was also let go, not recently but months ago. I'm too lazy to really look up profiles on Neogaf to check if they're legitimate, but wouldn't that be interesting...?
Nguyen @ Dec 1st 2007 2:18AM
yeah that would make much more sense if I include the link: http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=212394&page=46
John @ Nov 30th 2007 6:48PM
Gamespot closed-well, it says they are closed for maintenance-their forums down due to all of the posts about Jeff. Also, users are protesting by giving Kane and Lynch a score of 1.0.
Po0py @ Nov 30th 2007 6:51PM
You can find the offending video review on Youtube if you seach for Gerstmann, btw.
JP @ Nov 30th 2007 6:56PM
well, she want to keep her job too
tc @ Nov 30th 2007 6:59PM
"But this doesn't even reach that level of metaphysical pondering. It's obvious stonewalling."
A good point and well made too. Perhaps I need to get off the fence and start getting angry ;)
RABBLE RABBLE RABBLE
Phylicus @ Nov 30th 2007 7:19PM
What I don't understand about PR -- why open your mouth if you're not going to say anything.
Sarah didn't do anything except stir the pot.
If they really wanted to cover their tracks, they'd reopen the forums, repost the video review, and put the Kane & Lynch advertising back up, even if they have to do it for FREE.