After over a week of trickling news, a flood of anonymous sources and a torrential downpour of speculation, it seems the controversy surrounding former GameSpot editor Jeff Gerstmann's unceremonious firing is finally coming to a cool. This week's GameDaily Media Coverage feature takes a look back on the events and ramifications of Gerstmann-gate, written by Joystiq's own Kyle Orland (who, as you may have noticed, extensively covered the situation for us).
Though the final word is that GameSpot did not bow to advertiser pressure, even if true, a plethora of circumstances gave the illusion of malfeasance, ultimately damaging the website's credibility for those who paid attention to the week's events. The issue does bring up a good question: is the illusion of keeping advertising separate from editorial just as important, if not more so, than its reality?
Reader Comments (56)
Posted: Dec 7th 2007 8:14PM (Unverified) said
Gertsmann: Good Riddance.
Terrible reviewer. Find new work.
Terrible reviewer. Find new work.
Posted: Dec 7th 2007 10:47PM (Unverified) said
I hope this doesn't happen all the time, but since it probably happens regularly, I'll just make sure to check more than one review, and go by the metacritic and gamerankings score rather than just one particular score.
Posted: Dec 8th 2007 12:18AM (Unverified) said
Posted: Dec 8th 2007 12:19AM (Unverified) said
Posted: Dec 8th 2007 8:41AM (Unverified) said
"Though the final word is that GameSpot did not bow to advertiser pressure".
?????
There is no more evidence to that effect than there was on ay one of the saga. I have no idea what is true, but all the reports of dissent by writers within gamespot (who are in a far better position to know than we are) tend to indicate that its more likely to have been advertiser pressure than not.
I don't get why joystiq has been covering this so much, and then after a generic "give no details, standard legal blurb" press release from gamespot you are all "oh, nothing happened after all.. cos gamespot said so".
Which they didn't, and it wouldn't mean anything even if they did.
?????
There is no more evidence to that effect than there was on ay one of the saga. I have no idea what is true, but all the reports of dissent by writers within gamespot (who are in a far better position to know than we are) tend to indicate that its more likely to have been advertiser pressure than not.
I don't get why joystiq has been covering this so much, and then after a generic "give no details, standard legal blurb" press release from gamespot you are all "oh, nothing happened after all.. cos gamespot said so".
Which they didn't, and it wouldn't mean anything even if they did.
Posted: Dec 9th 2007 12:38AM (Unverified) said
Yea their whole Q&A session just stank of spin it made me motion sick just reading it. Now that it is all done Gamespot can you please un-suspend my 5+ year old account?
I know you hated my "9.5 Editors Choice - For Sale" avatar but that suspension was supposed to be only 1 day and its been like... a week.
I know you hated my "9.5 Editors Choice - For Sale" avatar but that suspension was supposed to be only 1 day and its been like... a week.
Featured Stories
Super Joystiq Podcast 004: 38 Studios meltdown, Gravity Rush, Civilization 5: Gods & Kings, Dragon's Dogma
Posted on May 25th 2012 3:30PM




