Gerstmann-gate: the aftermath
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 (Page 1 of 2)
Silent Xenocide @ Dec 7th 2007 3:33PM
Oh well, Gamespot isn't that great anyways. I prefer Gametrailers and their good video reviews.
FrankTheCrank @ Dec 7th 2007 3:36PM
"for those who paid attention to the week's events."
I was so busy trying to beat GLaDOS and getting my cake on...that I could have cared less.
BPM - The Revenge @ Dec 7th 2007 3:47PM
If you could care less... then that must mean you cared sonewhat about this!
Marrvia @ Dec 7th 2007 3:56PM
LOL, I would have said the same thing. I hate when people say "I could care less", it makes you sound dumb. It's "I couldn't care less", meaning you care so little about it, that you "couldn't" possibly care any less.
Micheal82 @ Dec 7th 2007 4:07PM
The cake is a lie
FrankTheCrank @ Dec 7th 2007 4:16PM
For the English majors, who were obviously disturbed at my post, how's this?
I was acutely engrossed in what some consider game of the year, Portal. And in my enthusiasm and infatuation with seeking a certain digital confectionery known as "the cake", failed to be engrossed by the Gerstmann/Gamespot controversy.
rv @ Dec 7th 2007 4:20PM
Yes, that annoys me. Like people who say "I could give 2 shits". Well that means you care enough to give 2 shits(while that still is not much I guess). You have to say couldn't.
0ldb0y @ Dec 7th 2007 4:29PM
"engrossed acutely"
0ldb0y @ Dec 7th 2007 4:34PM
"engrossed acutely" - adverb goes after the verb
"the cake," - comma goes inside the quotation marks
"I failed to be engrossed by..." - second clause of sentence needs an "I" at the beginning to specify a subject
ck @ Dec 7th 2007 6:27PM
hehe. I love going to blogs specifically about grammar mistakes. Oh and passiveagressivenotes.com
I get a good chuckle every time I visit.
J.Goodwin @ Dec 7th 2007 6:35PM
I think he's also misusing "infatuation." It needs a rewrite for flow purposes at least.
ComicShaman @ Dec 7th 2007 3:37PM
"Though the final word is that GameSpot did not bow to advertiser pressure..."
Why is that the final word? Because Gamespot says so? Because they wrote a tear-jerking "please love us again" article? Did you really expect them to ever do anything else?
Unless a "smoking gun" memo or email appears, all there will ever be to go on is the circumstances, and those indeed look very damning. Gamespot left it to Tor Thorsen to offer their defense -- who was not in a position to know the truth about what his bosses did or why. Not very convincing.
Bluebrake @ Dec 7th 2007 5:16PM
My guess is that Joystiq is trying to avoid a lawsuit. That's the only explanation I can think of, considering the evidence in favor of a shenanigans firing consists of mountains of damning circumstantial evidence and insider testimony, and the evidence against consists of Gamespot saying "No, we didn't."
I hope the posts of weak-kneed bloggers aren't going to shift public opinion towards believing Gamespot is the victim of some giant misunderstanding, because at this point that explanation is downright ludicrous.
Sam @ Dec 7th 2007 3:39PM
"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?"
Does a bear shit in the woods?
Crono (NDF - Knight of the Old School) @ Dec 7th 2007 3:42PM
Generally, yes. A bear shits in the woods.
Mort @ Dec 7th 2007 4:34PM
unless said bear lives in a zoo, or perhaps a polar bear, they go on in the snow or on the ice.
Zootittles @ Dec 7th 2007 4:44PM
Is polar bear shit white? Inquiring minds want to know!
Ally @ Dec 7th 2007 6:31PM
Dont eat the yellow snow...
jovin6 @ Dec 9th 2007 1:26AM
I imagine that sometimes a bear might also shit in the river. Such as when hunting salmon.
Roger @ Dec 7th 2007 3:41PM
I'd be curious to see the average review score before and after this incident.
Brym @ Dec 7th 2007 3:55PM
I honestly don't think it will change. Gamespot's scores, at least (if not the tone) have always been pretty much above reproach. Look at Ratchet and Clank Future--advertised on their site, but it got a score from Gamespot that is 1.4 points below the Metacritic average--and also far below the fanboy-inflated average user rating.
We know now that they clean up the language of reviews to placate advertisers. But the numbers, I think, are clean.
Lone Starr @ Dec 7th 2007 3:53PM
This turned into a big pile of nothing. I'm surprised, considering the accuracy and fairness of the Tubes.
Word Up, North Korea! @ Dec 7th 2007 3:55PM
yes, the "illusion" is obviously more important. In law, the standard for when a judge should recuse himself from the proceedings is not "actual bias" towards one of the parties, but merely "the appearance of impropriety"...if one wants to maintain their impartiality, it is the appearance, and not the subjective state of mind which is key.
iconmaster @ Dec 7th 2007 3:55PM
Eh, I'm done with GameSpot. There are other places to get previews and reviews.
Batzarro @ Dec 7th 2007 4:05PM
Less "the end" and more like "to be continued..."
Riod @ Dec 7th 2007 4:14PM
I don't get it, what'd I missed?
Last I heard, there were rumors about Gerstmann being fired because of his Kane & Lynch review;
Then Gamespot pulls the video review because of "microphone issues" (does anyone really buy that?) and edit the written review;
And they admit to being pressured by Eidos, but say that none of the above has anything to do with that (in a comment that came way too late).
What change the bottom line to gamespot's favor?
rTwelve @ Dec 7th 2007 4:18PM
i know where that place is
i feel special
unoefe @ Dec 7th 2007 4:18PM
Screw 'em. Gamespot felt they could let someone go with no consequences and they paid the price. I wish this kind of shit storm occurred anytime anyone was fired unfairly. I've worked at several organizations and, anytime someone was fired, it was never a surprise. Publisher pressure or not, this whole think stink to high heaven.
Kevin @ Dec 7th 2007 4:31PM
Gamespot already admitted that this looked really bad. And they're doing nothing to clear it up, other than say "c'mon guys, trust us..." I've already gone into my router and blocked all gamespot urls.
Kellian @ Dec 7th 2007 4:45PM
"Is the illusion of keeping advertising separate from editorial just as important, if not more so, than its reality?"
I'd sure say it does - so long as it's a good disguise. I mean honestly, if they'd waited what, another month or two and then canned him no one would have cared. CNet apparently employs morons that can't use a Calendar.
Obie @ Dec 7th 2007 5:05PM
Whatever the cause was, they should've given the guy a proper sendoff, what they did was still classless. That is why I have not and will not visit Gamespot again, and unsubscribed of their podcast.
gonk @ Dec 7th 2007 8:25PM
yeah, locking out your 11-year veteran editor from his office is pretty fucking classless
Ihar `Philips` Filipau @ Dec 7th 2007 5:14PM
Uhm... Anybody (still) surprised? (That really confirms that site is filled with kids who never ever yet earned a buck for themselves.)
Gertsmann made a "political" mistake. And we all know that US business is very very strict about politics - loosing your job for being "politically incorrect" is piece of cake.
What he did was to publish negative review while game was still advertised on site. This was plainly dumb and very unthoughtful on his side: never bite a feeding hand. It is only natural that once management did noticed that, it gave him a boot. No mysteries at all. Never bite a feeding hand.
Mr Khan @ Dec 7th 2007 5:20PM
Well, few of us are dumb, i suppose. He certainly wasn't smart doing what he did, i'll give you that, but the broader significance of this is what is more important, the fact that, within the peculiarly esoteric world of gaming culture, this puts the spotlight on a review system that many have proclaimed "broken" for some time
Ihar `Philips` Filipau @ Dec 7th 2007 5:33PM
It's not about "broken review system."
It's "business as usual."
Review system is broken not because it is business.
Review system is broken because 99% of reviewers are fanboys who last seen normal people only before they bought their game consoles.
Review system is broken because 99% of reviews are fanboy's game ass licking which misses basic facts and stats about game.
It is very stupid when "Reader Reviews" are both more informative and more interesting than highly paid, professionally written pieces.
Bluebrake @ Dec 7th 2007 11:00PM
I think you're kind of missing the point. It's not that it was foolish of Gertsmann to "bite the hand that feeds him," but that it was grossly unethical of his employers to cave in to that kind of pressure. Do you honestly not see a problem with this kind of thing happening in the media, whether it's just games or the "real" media?
Mr.ESC @ Dec 7th 2007 5:20PM
So…
Gamespot credibility dropped like a suicidal from the roof a tall building, Cnet is controlled by cold hearted lying bastards.
The reputation of “Eidos” after this issue also dropped not to mention the sales of Kane and lynch.
This issue was debated everywhere in the internet but a lot of people stop giving a flying turd after day one and the only ones that gained something from this were the sites and game reviewers supporting Jeff since they gained reputation and credibility for free because as you know they didn’t do crap.
Oh and a poor dude lost his job after 11 years just a month before Christmas.
A happy ending isn’t it? Well at least the “OMG no1 cares ‘bout dis ” comments will stop now.
Mr.ESC @ Dec 7th 2007 5:22PM
Ops there is a "of" missing and sorry for the crappy punctuation.
Hardcore @ Dec 7th 2007 5:26PM
Commentards insert foot in mouth, the internet is full of people who are looking to get their feathers ruffled, no matter how stupid that something is, "to rage against the machine" - jumping to conclusions without any facts. I remember the days when people would get angry at things that mattered like corrupt politicians or wars or whatever. Now people get angry when people insult their favorite video game console or next generation video format...wow our society FAILS.
Mr.ESC @ Dec 7th 2007 5:39PM
Don't forget the new**gs pointing at the obvious…
Well I will protest against virtually anything unfair , start a protest and I will supply you the torches and forks but starting stuff like that requires time and money and you can just start hating, you need proves.
Do you have proves of any politician doing something dirty in your hand right now?
ComicShaman @ Dec 7th 2007 6:21PM
I don't exactly see people rioting in the streets here. They're commenting on message boards, erasing bookmarks, and canceling subscriptions. Seems proportionate to the issue to me.
jojo @ Dec 7th 2007 5:31PM
Gamestop if off of my normal surfing list. I don't know all the details, but it smells fishy and I avoid fish.
NATO_Duke @ Dec 7th 2007 5:33PM
OK, I cant take it anymore. It was all my fault. I'm sorry. I'm sorry he lost his job. I'm sorry to caving to the pressure. I'm sorry to cause all this scandal.
I feel awful about it all.
Mr.ESC @ Dec 7th 2007 5:56PM
Nothing sez "I'm so sorry
J.Goodwin @ Dec 7th 2007 6:33PM
The word you're looking for isn't "illusion," it's "appearance."
Professionals in law, accounting, government, and other professions have long had rules that recognize that you can't just avoid actual conflicts of interest, you need to avoid the appearance of a conflict of interest.
The appearance is just as damaging to your reputation as the reality. It's about time that games journalists learned the same lesson.
Eddie @ Dec 7th 2007 6:36PM
OK ladies, all you little gossipmongers can go back to your sewing circles and pretend being outraged by a PHANTOM story.
You all fail at logic and common sense, but succeed at following the leader and swallowing everything anybody who can fake even a moment of authority tells you.
And don't jump on the condemnation-of-commentards bandwagon; when we need lemmings, we'll just make up a story and watch you parade your feigned outrage all over the blogosphere.
ColossalHat @ Dec 7th 2007 6:56PM
"pretend being outraged by a PHANTOM story."
Except Gerstmann was fired and there is a ton of circumstantial evidence pointing toward the unethical firing angle.
"You all fail at logic and common sense"
The logic part is connecting the evidence (circumstantial though it may be) and coming up with a conclusion that applies to common sense. This conclusion is the one that just about everyone came to, that Gerstmann's firing was unfair, unethical, and wrong in every sense of the word.
And if you say the common sense or logic failing is that the majority of people who've commented on the story is that they didn't believe Gamespot after they said it was just coincidence, then you must be the most gullible person I've ever seen. Then again, you could always be a shill.
Eddie @ Dec 7th 2007 7:08PM
"Circumstantial evidence"?? READ: Contrived (made-up, fake) evidence
It was all pure speculation, from day one. Who's more gullible? The one who believes a bunch of shoddy reporting based on what amounted to nothing more than fancy he-said she-said on the playground, or the one who believes that firings happen all the time, especially when there is a change in management.
The logic failure happened when everyone started pouncing on the journalistic integrity of the entire editorial staff at GS when no one, not even the scorned party, gave any indication that undue pressure from a sponsor was to blame. Why would the employee who got terminated unfairly not at least hint that there was something going on behind the scenes? Why wouldn't any of the other writers, even on condition of anonymity, come out in support of him or even to offer insight on the perceived lack of integrity?
Because there WAS no lack of integrity, the guy got fired because he was not doing his job to the satisfaction of his employer. Now you've not only wasted alot of everyone's time, but you've put this guy into the middle of a madeup public controversy for kicks and giggles while he has to deal with news of his firing spreading like wildfire all across the blogosphere. I've never seen a man disrespected so badly, a man that was purported to have a lot of fans and supporters. It makes no common sense when all the "news" is coming from third parties who never did and never will have anything to do with the facts of this particular case. As a matter of fact, the parties spreading all these unfounded rumours all had more to gain from it than GS did by caving to advertiser pressure. Where are your cries of journalistic breach of integrity now?
There's your common sense, I'd love to sell you more but I'm afraid even if you could afford it, you just wouldn't have anywhere to put it.
ColossalHat @ Dec 7th 2007 8:21PM
There's one simple problem with your argument. Gerstmann had already lost his job, so he had nothing to lose when the rumors started up. There was almost no way that his reputation could ever be tarnished by the event. So why would he make a statement either way? Sure third parties had something to gain from all this, but Gamespot had nothing to gain, and as such didn't deem it necessary to say a damn thing until six days later. Oftentimes, when politics are involved, what an entity doesn't say will tell you more than what they do.
The problem is, the coincidences are quite simply too great to ignore. Thus they are considered circumstantial evidence, and while you can't win a legal case with such evidence, the fact of the matter is that both Gamespot and Gerstmann handled this poorly. I'm not out to make Gerstmann a martyr, nor am I boycotting Gamespot (since I visit that place possibly once every couple months). I'm just saying that it was said that a man who worked for a company for 11 years was fired over something trivial at best. He did his job, he reviewed a game, and it "just happened" to be a bad review. He also "just happened" to be fired when that bad review was posted. This review was of a game that "just happened" to be plastered all over Gamespot's site. Gamespot cited his tone, and multiple instances thereof, to be the cause of his firing, but if this were the case we probably would have heard about the prior instances, or one of his coworkers would have said something about them. The video review was pulled because the audio was faulty. Finally, his coworkers said he was locked out of his office with a box of his stuff outside the door.
That last part alone is worth an outcry. I don't care how big your corporation/business is, you don't do that to a person who has worked his ass off for over a decade. It was unprofessional of Gamespot and as such they've suffered backlash from that. You seem to be completely discounting anything that's not cited in an official report and is more or less, "Well Gamespot said so, so it must be said." I'm not saying Gamespot is lying, but there's definitely something fishy about this whole ordeal and due to California's laws, Gerstmann can't say why he was fired without Gamespot agreeing to that, nor can Gamespot do so without Gerstmann's permission. So, in short, one of the parties is completely full of shit and doesn't want something to come out to the public. My bet is it's Gamespot since they would have more to lose than Gerstmann would if anything were revealed along with the terms of his firing.
Eddie @ Dec 10th 2007 12:20PM
Anyone with any experience can tell you that when changes in management occur, there is always a certain percentage of the workforce that were loyal to the old guard and are not as productive under the new management.
The disrespect to Gerstmann occurred when you all tried making him a martyr when nothing of the sort had happened. Now this guy ended up getting fired for legitimate reasons, cool or otherwise, and the manner in which it was done has no bearing on the situation. So now this guy has had his name attached to this phantom story, and he always knew why he was fired but (understandably) didn't reveal it publicly, and in trying to move on with his life and career, especially in this tightly-knit industry, he might always be known as "that guy".
Sucks, if you ask me, and would warrant being extra careful not to jump on any bandwagon just because somebody says a corporation has overstepped its bounds. I'm all for the revolution, but we'll kill it before it starts by backing sensationalist stories and faking outrage, because it's exactly how people who care enough to control every facet of our modern day society.
Just think about it next time, kids.