Rumor: Gamespot's editorial director fired over Kane & Lynch review

by Kyle Orland { Nov 30th 2007 at 12:30AM }

Update 2:45 PM EST: Gamespot has issued a massive Q&A addressing many outstanding issues surrounding the firing.

Update: 11:50 AM EST Dec. 5, 2007: Check out Joystiq's analysis of the edits to Gerstmann's Kane & Lynch review. GameSpot editors comment on their Hot Spot podcast. Also: Tuesday and Wednesday updates from around the web.

Update 10:00 PM EST: Gamespot has posted official notice of the firing on their website. Meanwhile, some editors at CNET have commented on the controversy in a podcast.

Update - 11:20 AM EST Dec. 3, 2007: Further updates, and Gerstmann's exclusive comments to Joystiq.

Update - 11:00AM EST Dec. 2, 2007: More updates from around the web.

Update - 3:45PM EST: Ziff Davis employees rally for Gerstmann

Update - 9:00AM EST Dec. 1, 2007: The latest developments on the story.

Update - 5:45PM EST: CNET has amended their earlier statement with Joystiq.

Update - 3:20PM EST: We just noticed that Gerstmann's video review, previously accessible only through a direct link, has been removed from the site. Here's an alternate YouTube link.

Update - 2:20PM EST: We got a response from CNET, GameSpot's parent company, that totally explains the whole thing away ... you see. Actually, they don't say much.

Update - 12:52 AM EST: Penny Arcade, which helped popularize this story with their comic last night, has posted an accompanying commentary piece on the issue. The story they were told (by whom, we do not know) has Gamespot management angry at Gerstmann for long-standing problems with his reviewing "tone." The Kane & Lynch review, which allegedly caused Eidos to withdraw "hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of future advertising from the site," served as the straw that broke the camel's back. There's no named source for this information, but the piece does say that "the firm belief internally [is] that Jeff was sacrificed."

Update - 11:00 AM EST: The anonymous source/speculation train rolls on. Rock Paper Shotgun has posted a story citing an unnamed "very reliable source" as saying that "while Gerstmann wasn't the most popular man with the CNET owners, it was his Kane & Lynch review alone that saw him lose his job." Meanwhile, a poster at Forumopolis who claims to be directly involved with the Kane & Lynch ad campaign says that the whole thing is just a matter of bad timing. "I sincerely doubt that Eidos made Gamespot fire him," the poster writes. "CNET doesn't kowtow to its advertisers, and I've more than once seen the higher-ups turn away big advertising dollars for the sake of the company's integrity." Make of this what you will.

Update - 10:44 AM EST: Gamespot PR representative Leslie Van Every has responded to Joystiq's request for comment with ... a predictable 'no comment.' "It is CNET Networks' policy to never comment on individual employees--current or former--regarding their job status," Van Every told Joystiq. "This policy is in place out of respect for the individuals' privacy."

Update - 7:12 AM EST: Jeff has confirmed his firing to us via e-mail, but says he's "not really able to comment on the specifics of my termination." He added that he's "looking forward to getting back out there and figuring out what's next." We're still digging.

Update - 1:35 AM EST: The Kane and Lynch ads that blanketed Gamespot's front page are no longer being shown. Check out the picture above to see what the site looked at just an hour ago.

Original Post:
So before we get going, we should make it clear that this post is still just a rumor and many of the facts behind it are still up in the air. That being said, word around game journalism's virtual water cooler is that Gamespot Editorial Director Jeff Gerstmann has been fired because publisher Eidos was unhappy about his negative review of Kane & Lynch: Dead Men.

What seems in little dispute, going by forum chatter as well as multiple published sources (referencing conversations with multiple CNet employees), is that Gerstmann has indeed been fired after over ten years working at the site. We were not immediately able to confirm the firing with Gamespot or Gerstmann directly, but an e-mail sent to his Gamespot address did get returned with a "permanent failure" error. Seems pretty serious to us ... (see 7:12 AM update above)

What is in some dispute is the reason behind the firing. The current leading theory is that Eidos, a major Gamespot advertiser (just look at the current Kane&Lynch-ified front page shown above) was unhappy with Gerstmann's review of their game and brought pressure to bear on the site to remove the longstanding editor (Eidos representatives were not immediately available for comment). Gamespot's text review of the game is definitely very negative, and the 6/10 score rather low, but it's the video review of the game that really eviscerates it for "impossible to like" characters, a "lazy" script and excessive profanity, among other things. It does seem plausible that Eidos might not be too happy with either review, and that Gamespot might be willing to do anything to prevent losing such a large advertiser (notwithstanding the site's posted review guidelines, which state they have never "altered our verdict about any game due to advertiser pressure").

But there are some parts of the story that don't quite fit. For one, the review was posted on Nov. 13, yet the evidence points to Gerstmann being fired only recently. For another, it stands to reason that if Eidos was so unhappy with the review, that they would also demand it be taken down from the site, a step that has not yet been taken (though the video version doesn't seem to be actively linked on the site's Kane & Lynch videos page has now been removed from the site completely. See 3:20 pm update, above)? And while GameSpot's 6/10 score was low, it certainly wasn't out of the ordinary. Why would Gamespot be singled out, and why would such a senior and generally respected editor be demanded (and accepted by Gamespot) as sacrifice?

The ramifications of the story, if true, are huge. Readers should fairly expect there to be an inviolable firewall between advertising and editorial in journalism, and game journalism (yes, that includes "just reviews") is no different. While our industry has had its fair share of accusations of impropriety, nothing so far has been proven beyond a shadow of a doubt. Giving a publisher the power to fire a senior editor is a line no outlet should be willing to cross.

We hope that everything is not as it seems here, and that there has simply been some sort of misunderstanding brought on by a game of telephone. The circumstantial evidence, however, is hard to ignore, and significant enough to make us seriously question what exactly is going on here. We'll of course be following this story as it inevitably develops over the next few days.

Tags: advertiser, breaking, breakingnews, controversy, Eidos, fired, Gamespot, Gerstmann, influence, jeff-gerstmann, journalism, kane-and-lynch

Related From Joystiq

Team Fortress 2 Pumpkin Patch update now live
11 days ago
Rumor: PS3 cross-game chat in next firmware update
27 days ago
Xbox removes Nov. 17 release date for Twitter/Facebook from UK site
30 days ago

Reader Comments (Page 1 of 4)

TSIGOS @ Nov 30th 2007 12:35AM

If true, Gamespot has lost any shred of credibility that it had left.

gonk @ Nov 30th 2007 1:02AM

it didn't have any left anyway

Hashbrown_Hunter @ Nov 30th 2007 1:35AM

Seriously.

1UP has always been, and is now the last, honest website for gaming culture.

It's sad really. I enjoyed GameSpot more than 1UP before, but now it's just ridiculous. I'm not saying 1UP is the best, but it is definitely one of the more personal and has a lot more credibility now than GS.

This is pretty much pathetic on GS part. News sites, not only gaming sites, are supposed to support their writers/editors more than their sponsors. GS has become corrupt and greedy.

And to think they were once considered the best gaming site on the web...

Mromson @ Nov 30th 2007 1:39AM

If this true, both Edios and GameSpot will instantly end up on my blacklist down to the point where I entirely block the site away.

It would be a deep, deep, DEEP insult. Both GameSpot and Edios could never recover from it.

Kewlrats @ Nov 30th 2007 6:33AM

Wow, that freaking sucks!

Jeff was the only reason I still listened to their podcasts, and it looks like that won't be happening anymore.

Besides, I have the Joystiq podcast now, so I shouldn't listen to any others anyways.

But yeah, that would be a major loss to Gamespot for the great work he's done over the years.

elmer @ Nov 30th 2007 8:52AM

I've actually stopped reading 1up, only checking in once a month or so to confirm my suspicions about their rather extreme slants. They're true to their opinions, but their opinions are insultingly biased (mostly). It's actually strong enough to show up statistically.

rv @ Nov 30th 2007 10:11AM

Well if this is true, then I won't be trusting gamespot anymore. It would be nice to have a site thats independent from ads and does reviews.
Perhaps you guys at joystiq should start doing more reviews?

Dave @ Nov 30th 2007 1:54PM

I just canceled my paid subscription there, I never felt comfortable about that place since they were nabbed up by CNET.

S Freude @ Dec 1st 2007 1:29PM

I love that this is still up on the site.

"I have more questions."
We are always looking for ways to improve our reviews, because we know they are important to you. Please contact Editorial Director Jeff Gerstmann at jeff@gamespot.com if you have any further questions about our standards or policies with respect to our coverage of games.

Fernando Rocker @ Nov 30th 2007 12:36AM

Well... look at this...

http://www.penny-arcade.com/comic

pwnetheus @ Nov 30th 2007 12:39AM

That was one awesome comic.

Obie @ Nov 30th 2007 12:58AM

I bet Tycho and Gabe will have a very interesting editorial tomorrow.

Fernando Rocker @ Nov 30th 2007 9:17AM

*Updated link for future references:

http://www.penny-arcade.com/comic/2007/11/29

Vander @ Nov 30th 2007 12:36AM

They'll be losing me as a reader if this turns out to even smell as if it could be true.

Si @ Nov 30th 2007 7:32AM

Not just a reader, but as a viewer. Their weekly show, On The Spot, usually presented by Gerstmann didn't air last night (http://www.gamespot.com/onthespot). And there's a suitably generic message on the page apologizing. This stinks.

Obie @ Nov 30th 2007 12:36AM

I like Jeff G just fine, he seems not to get caught up in hype and seems honest in his reviews.
What does it say about the videogame industry if the publishers dictate the terms of their games' reviews?
What if this has happened before?
I feel this is something that needs to be seriously looked into, because it really, really sucks if it is true.

Ramifications @ Nov 30th 2007 1:28AM

Which one is Jeff again?

The fat one who was pretty funny and was trying to get the highest gamerscore?

Ignatius @ Nov 30th 2007 5:22AM

Yeah, because THPS3 needed a 10.

That game was lame compared to 2, 4 and THUG1.

Sam406 @ Nov 30th 2007 6:17AM

I if this is true, then I don't know what to say, gamespot was the first game review site I trusted, but if this is true, then I probably wont be at gamespot any time soon.

On reflection, it might not have been THIS that got Jeff fired but rather the SUM OF ALL THINGS hes got in trouble for, the guy raised hell with his TP review, and now hes doing it again, but he still should not be silenced like that.

I guess I'll take my "most trusted review site" pin and give it to Gametrailers

pwnetheus @ Nov 30th 2007 12:38AM

Isn't that Mr. 8.8 as people like to call him?

Josh Himself @ Nov 30th 2007 12:41AM

no, he's Mr. Awesome-O 3000

Obie @ Nov 30th 2007 12:42AM

I thought ( after playing through Twilight Princess myself) he was not too far off.

Blast Processing Megadrive @ Nov 30th 2007 1:05AM

Twilight Princess was fun. But I think 8.8 was an appropriate score. Still means it was a great game.

bm @ Nov 30th 2007 5:17AM

8.8 -would- have been appropriate if it weren't for the climate of ludicrously overrated piles of crap lately that have gotten 10's all over the place, like Halo 3, Bioshock or *shudder* FFXII. If we have to go by the scores of those games, Zelda should have been a 12/10 or something.

Sure, it's not as good as Link to the Past or Ocarina, but it pisses all over the aforementioned overhyped shitpiles from great heights.

bm @ Nov 30th 2007 9:44AM

Whoa, what's with the downvoting? FPS kiddies in the audience? I feel sorry for you. ;)

Devils Advocate @ Nov 30th 2007 10:58AM

@bm:

"Whoa, what's with the downvoting? FPS kiddies in the audience? I feel sorry for you. ;)"

Perhaps because your comments are pointless and self serving, and, quite frankly, no body gives a shit what you think?

Trust me, it has nothing to do with your raging hard on against FPS simply because you lack the eye/hand coordination to play those type of games.

Jon @ Nov 30th 2007 11:18AM

I noticed that you only have high regards on Nintendo published games. May I say that it is likely you have no skills to play any other games nor the ability to open your mind. Besides calling other people kiddies. Just how old are you?

bm @ Nov 30th 2007 12:30PM

Hmm lessee. Out of my top 10 favourite franchises, only about 3-4 are even -on- Nintendo consoles, so there goes your assertion. Sorry, kid. ;p

I just find myself increasingly having to come to the heroic aid (if I do say so myself) of Nintendo games because, well, ever since the Wii has rocketed from underdog to top dog, the whining of haters seems to have risen proportionally!

bm @ Nov 30th 2007 4:04PM

Holy shit, that one went fast, haha. I can just taste the bitter hate.

Nicko @ Nov 30th 2007 12:41AM

While I do believe Jeff can be a little overly harsh and negative about some games (8.8 for Twilight Princess), I do not think in anyway that his harshness deserves him to be fired. I seriously bet there is more to this story than just his review.

Jonathan @ Nov 30th 2007 12:47AM

Twilight Princess is overhyped. 8.8 is still higher than what it deserves. 8.0 in my book.

But yeah, this is a shock to who? We all know some websites/magazines are bribed (ex. they get exclusive cover story rights to the game if they're guaranteed a certain score, see EGM's letter from the editor the month doom 3 was on Gamepro's cover.)

So, yeah. All the more reason to not visit any individual site and use Game Rankings/Meta Critic instead.