Preamble:

The Purpose of Gaming Journals:

Ethics Defined:

Let's get one thing straight: ETHICS ARE NOT LAWS! No one in gaming journalism is required to adhere to the precepts of a journalistic ethic. So let's proceed.

What are Journalistic Ethics?

A set of directives or precepts which outline what is acceptable behaviour within a profession is usually called a "code of ethics." Code is derived from the word codex, which were, and are, books of statutes. Statutes can be rules or laws. Today, we use the word code to refer to rules when we are speaking about professions, but you can see the implication. Although they may be voluntary rules, they have the force of law within a professional association. Break 'em and you will be stripped of your professional status, shunned by your peers, and probably become fabulously wealthy peddling some sort of bourgeois trash. I shudder when I think about it.

So, should game journalists be considered professionals? I wouldn't mind being thought of as a professional game journalist but the fact that I am writing this at home, unshaven, wearing boxer shorts and a t-shirt, at 2:30 in the afternoon makes the title seem a little silly. My hygiene aside, what would a code of ethics for game journalists look like. Well, it might look something like this code of web journalism ethics I found at webethics.com.

If you go to that site you'll see that the foundation of the ethic is built upon two main precepts:

1. Full disclosure of all commercial content,
2. Prohibiting conflicts of interest and other ethical violations in the preparation of all content.

Wow, eh? Those two precepts, had the game journalists been aware of them, may have prevented this debate in the first place. Why most WEREN'T aware of them is a good question too. Why they don't formally ascribe to an ethic of this sort is an even better question still! But let's not get bogged-down in these would have, could have, should have matters and turn our attention to the specific accusations made by gamers of the game journal industry.

The Debate or: I Know You Are But What Am I?

1. Game journals are publishing reviews based on betas and gold masters.
2. Game journalists have received gifts from game and hardware producers.
3. Game journals have instituted the practice of exchanging editorial for advertising.
4. Game journals purposely hype games with favourable previews and reviews in order to attract and maintain ad dollars.
5. Game journalists should only present the facts and not hype.

Let's look at each of these issues separately in more detail.

Point 1 - Publishing reviews based on beta or gold master versions of a game:
This is only unethical if the preview or review doesn't mention this fact. Some of the editors and journalists have admitted to doing this. The danger here is that these pre-released versions MAY differ significantly from the final product which reaches retail shelves.

Typically, reviewers gloss over bugs and shortcomings in pre-release versions because they are assured by the game's producer that these limitations will be fixed before the retail version (often called the box or shrink-wrapped version) comes out. If, however, the game producer does NOT address these flaws then readers may purchase a game that doesn't live up to the claims of the reviewer.

In order to be fair to game producers we need to make a distinction between so called GOLD or final versions and beta versions. In order to maintain journalistic integrity and serve readers properly, writers should inform the readers when their reviews are based on pre-release versions, whether GOLD or beta. When the product is GOLD writers are obliged to enumerate all the problems they encounter. If the product is a beta, writers commonly withhold information on flaws and should make this clear to the reader. A "preview" is NOT a "review" and if readers enjoy reading previews then this compromise must have a place in gaming journalism.

Point 2 - Journalists have received gifts from game and hardware producers:
This is definitely unethical because receiving gifts has the potential to favourably influence the reviewer. There is a crucial distinction to be made here because the ethic of receiving gifts relies not in the reality of whether or not the reviewer was influenced by a gift, but in the POTENTIAL influence it may produce. These gifts range from free games and peripherals to all-expense paid trips to exotic locations and events. Again, the size of the gift is not important, the ethical dilemma arises because these gifts, regardless of value, have the potential to influence the objectivity of the writer. Unlike point 1, it doesn't help to admit the fact that the gift was received because it is a fundamentally unethical practice.

Addendum: Since writing this I have received several emails from game journalists that feel that accepting games for free is a necessary part of doing the job. Just as movie and stage play reviewers receive free passes, so too should game reviewers be allowed to accept free games. So, I'm softening this stance to only cover gifts which are above and beyond the needs of game journalists to fulfill their basic obligation of writing a preview or review. Furthermore, in light of emails from gamers, I must also admit to an about-face on my statement that it does no good to reveal to readers that a gift was received because it is a fundamentally unethical practice. The issue is really about disclosure. It's a fact that gifts will continue to be offered by producers of games and hardware and journalists will continue to accept them. All the readers want to know is if there was an exchange of gifts so they can make up their own minds as to whether it will affect their purchasing decision.

Point 3 - Exchanging editorials for advertising:
This is also fundamentally unethical behaviour. Does this happen? I can't verify the practice despite the fact that one of the instigators of the on-line debate posted an intercepted communications from a game journal to a game producer which stated this explicitly. The reason it can't be verified is because the identity of the instigator remains a mystery (he uses a pseudonym) so it can't be considered a reliable source. And the identity of the sender of the email, who was soliciting advertising space in exchange for editorial exposure, was not stated. However, the implication that it was true was strong enough to elicit rebuttals from the most prominent on-line and printed game journals.

Addendum: The true identity of the company that sent the email mentioned in the previous paragraph has now been revealed to me. However, since it was sent to me through a third-party acting on behalf of the "mystery" poster, I still can't authenticate it as a reliable source. I have contacted the supposed authors of the third-hand email, but have yet to hear any response. I'll keep you folks posted.)

The reason exchanging editorial exposure for advertising is unethical is also due to the potential to influence the journal's coverage of the advertiser's product. But here's the real problem: avoiding the appearance of a conflict of interest in newspaper, radio, and television journalism is easier because the revenue which ultimately pays the writer's or reporter's salaries can be obtained from a variety of sources. So, even though a magazine may receive advertising dollars from a tobacco company, it can maintain the appearance of objectivity when it reports that nicotine has been found to have medicinal benefits because the tobacco companies aren't the journal's sole source of income. On the other hand, the vast majority of advertising revenue in a game journal comes from the companies whose products the journal reviews. This is particularly true of web-based journals that don't have subscriber or retail sales revenue. NOW the code of ethics looks a bit daunting!

If journals could not accept advertising from game and hardware companies they would be out of business in a heart beat. But the conflict is real. What's the solution? Let's start with the absurd and work our way to what can only be described as a compromise:

• For print journals: eliminate all advertising and charge $30.00 per copy.
• For web-based journals: eliminate all advertising, password protect the site, and charge an annual fee for access.
• Create an IEEE-type group that reviews games according to strict criteria. Fun is not a factor.
• Allow advertising, but only from non-game related industries (Now where did I put that number for Jolt Cola?).
• Allow game company advertising, but institute a code of ethics which will ensure that reader's interests are protected.

Point 4 - Game journals purposely hype games with favourable previews and reviews in order to attract and maintain ad dollars.

This point goes hand-in-hand with the previous point, but it is different. First of all, I think that any game journal that consciously does hype games in order to attract advertisers is signing its own death warrant. The public is smart enough to recognize hack journalism and will simply stop buying publications that are pure hype.

But a game journal doesn't have to be PURE hype to irritate its readers. Gamers want their game journals to be "100% Pure Information! No Artificial Hype or Crappy Game Preservatives Added!"

On this point I differ with the gamers. Accusations of hyping games to attract dollars is more of an indictment of a game journal's editorial tone than their financial motives. Most game editors have nothing to do with the financial end of the business, and even if they do, there's just no future in kissing up to game companies no matter how much money they spend in advertising. I don't know if we can ever know if a game journal is hyping games for ad dollars but I suspect the appearance of hype has more to do with issues of competition. Are you going to pick up the magazine that says "Red Baron II: See Our Independent Lab Tests. Data from an 8MHz 8088 to a Pentium II. Over 100 Columns of Data." or "Red Baron II: Kick-Ass Simulation So Real You'll Smell the Fuel and the Sauerkraut!" My guess is you'd pick up the latter.

I do agree with gamers, however, that unsubstantiated claims of sizzling graphics, awesome play-action, cool this and wicked that are better left on the magazine covers or the game box. If writers want to use these phrases, they need to provide more detail in description or some proof whether it be a benchmark figure or a quote from a credible source. Just because I think something is way cool doesn't constitute a useful fact by which a gamer can make an informed decision.

This raises another interesting point: Are game writers journalists in the sense we should only provide facts, or are we critics in the same vein as movie reviewers? Furthermore, why should journalists be accountable for the buying decisions of gamers?

If I'm touting myself as a journalist I should take the high-road and verify all my claims. However, if I'm simply a game critic I'm free to give my opinion without backing it up. It then becomes the reader's responsibility to decide if I'm a useful source of information or just a self-serving, self-aggrandizing, free-trip accepting, game company butt-kisser. Unfortunately, readers don't like to be told to make these distinctions. Therefore, I think the journals need to do a better job of distinguishing between what is an objective, un-biased, empirically-based review and what is a subjective interpretation of a game's merits based on one man's opinion.

In short, the debate is about trust. Readers want to be sure that the information they read in magazines and web sites is accurate, informative, and above all, un-biased. At the very least journals need to clearly distinguish the parameters of the review so if mistakes are made at least the reader was warned. Easy to say, but how easy is it to do?

To Police or Not To Police or: Hands Up Against The Monitor and Spread 'Em!

Maybe it's too soon to be thinking about associations, but I do believe if game journals would adopt some sort of journalistic code it would go a long way toward enhancing the credibility of our character or, as Aristotle would say, our ethos. Ethos, by the way, is the Greek word for character, which is the root of the word ethic. Therefore, if we are to establish and maintain our credibility with readers and avoid future attacks on our character, we must establish our ethos. In order to establish a credible ethos, we must adopt an ethic. Whether that ethic will develop into a code to which all serious game journalists would adhere remains to be seen.