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.
(Page 1) Reader Comments
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
"You don't call retarded people retards, that would be in bad taste."
- Michael Scott, The Office
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)
Reply
Reply
Reply
http://www.digg.com/gaming_news/Rumor_Gamespot_Editor_Fired_Over_Negative_Kane_Lynch_Review
http://digg.com/all/popular/24hours
I'm guessing this problem is confined only to Firefox 2 users?
Reply
Reply
And I'm allergic to fish.
Reply
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.
Reply
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.
Reply
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.
Reply
Reply
Reply
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.
Reply
Reply
Reply
sorry i couldn't help myself...
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?
Reply
But this doesn't even reach that level of metaphysical pondering. It's obvious stonewalling.
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.
Reply
Reply
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.
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
A good point and well made too. Perhaps I need to get off the fence and start getting angry ;)
RABBLE RABBLE RABBLE
Reply
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.
Reply