Why is investigative journalism about games going unnoticed?

[alexlitel]

I cannot help but wonder why quality muckraking like Ben Fritz's Brash coverage (http://weblogs.variety.com/the_cut_scene/brash_entertainment/index.html) and Leigh Alexander's reportage of Montreal salary-fixing collusion (http://www.gamasutra.com/php-bin/news_index.php?story=21131) falls to the wayside, while gamers - some of whom claim there is no such thing as "games journalism" - gawk about some cryptic teaser.

I was initially thinking it might be the synonymity of these writers and blogs and that the reporting comes from trade publications, but there is many cases that rebut those. How is fairly scandalous material ending up largely ignored?

[SqueakyFoo]

Because quite honestly, no one really cares.

[Pogo]

The same way that scandalous political material is brushed aside or ignored by the mainstream media...

yeah I don't know what way that is, but it's the same.

[Luke M]

I think many people who play games are averse to reading. Ben and Leigh lost most of their potential audience when they neglected to assign a number score to their articles.

[Sol Invictus]

For the same reason you don't want to give Kane & Lynch a bad review. You don't want to piss off your benefactors.

Because talking shit about a major publisher on most amateur gaming news sites will cause them to stop sending you free games to "review". If you're on GameSpot or something, it'll probably cause them to drop you from their advertising budget, and that's never good.

[DoomMunky]

I imagine it's going unnoticed because for the most part, we gamers like to think and talk about our games, not the industry forces that swirl around behind them. We're not 'game industry fans', we're game fans. Becoming interested in the industry is a definite side effect of following and being involved in video game culture, but it's a relatively small portion of gamers who get into it, I bet.

There's also the issue of becoming conditioned to follow games in a certain way. We find our preferred mode of thinking about games, our two or three favorite sites, and we stick to those. We check out new coverage of games we're interested in, stay abreast of general industry gossip, follow the console war and choose our allegiances, and then we call it a day. Investigative Gaming Journalism and the new sorts of stories that are starting to be told about games and the games industry rarely fit into those pre-established consumption patterns, so they get little, if any, attention.

That's my off-the-cuff analysis, based on my own patterns. I check Qt3, RockPaperShotgun, look at the 1up news feed, and then...I do it all again. I don't branch out much, and I don't explore longer-form stuff, for the most part. I've got my comfortable gaming-hobby habit, and I stick with it.

[checker]

How is fairly scandalous material ending up largely ignored?

Were they ignored? The salary thing was talked about, although I was in Montreal at the time, so maybe it wasn't outside of QC (there was a thread here, though)? The Brash story just wasn't that interesting, frankly, even though the Variety articles tried to make it seem like it was. Everybody predicted it the day they announced. It was Rocket Science all over again. The story would have been if they'd actually made good games.

There really just isn't much investigative journalism in the game industry. The last piece I remember that made a splash was the Dallas Observer's expose on ION Storm.

Is there much investigative journalism about the film or music industry? It seems like any serious investigative journalist would be in Washington where it actually matters
.

Chris

* I think games and entertainment matter a lot and are important to society, but in a very different way (art uplifts, speaks to the human condition, etc.; a bad game or corrupt company doesn't risk lives) where the individual works are important but the industry stuff isn't, compared to say something like a Defense Department scandal about faulty body armor or misplaced funds or whatever.

[rossm]

For the same reason you don't want to give Kane & Lynch a bad review. You don't want to piss off your benefactors.

Because talking shit about a major publisher on most amateur gaming news sites will cause them to stop sending you free games to "review". If you're on GameSpot or something, it'll probably cause them to drop you from their advertising budget, and that's never good.
So, let me try to understand what you're saying. The reason people don't notice scandalous articles about the gaming industry is because...why? Because readers want to continue getting free games ???

[Staff Sergeant]

So, let me try to understand what you're saying. The reason people don't notice scandalous articles about the gaming industry is because...why? Because readers want to continue getting free games ???

Sol seems seems to have misconstrued "going unnoticed" and "going unwritten or unpublished".

[beloved one]

Well, what is the effect? People (the broad audience) are interested in reviews and teaser trailers, because that affects whether they will spend 20-60$ on some game or not. What relevance is wage collusion for the average consumer or end-user? It's not obvious whether it's going to affect whether they enjoy some game or not, so really, why should they care?

Muckraking got popular with meat packing issues, because poor practices caused widespread illness. People have always been interested in political investigation, for 2 reasons, politicians are celebrities, and because corruption can ruin public goods that taxes pay for. In short, nobody cares about investigative journalism in the gaming industry, because it's not important in the wider scheme of things, and the software companies are not staffed by public celebrities. A teaser trailer that causes a game to sell 1,000,000 instead of 500,000 copies is far more important.

[TomChick]

For the same reason you don't want to give Kane & Lynch a bad review. You don't want to piss off your benefactors.

How about letting the adults discuss the subject? Because it's a potentially interesting one.

I'm with Hecker on this. As fascinating as I find the Brash story, and as great a job as Ben Fritz has done detailing it, no one is surprised. The wage fixing scandal is based on a single email and was easily brushed aside by the proper comments. Without a better smoking gun, it's not going to go anywhere.

But mostly, you're talking about an enthusiast press. Writers write about the games. Note that Fritz's Brash coverage ran in Variety and Leigh Alexander's bit about the wages was on Gamasutra. Those are more trade oriented publications. But it's simply not the job of places like IGN and Gamespot to cover that sort of thing, because it's not what their readers want.

-Tom

[Factory]

It should be noted that the the wage fixing story is journalism, whereas games jouralism is usually referring to quality of critical analysis, which is a different thing.

[checker]

It should be noted that the the wage fixing story is journalism, whereas games jouralism is usually referring to quality of critical analysis, which is a different thing.

Yes, my comments above apply to "investigative journalism", which I think is the specific topic of this thread. Better "game criticism" is something we need more of, definitely, but that has also been discussed to death. Plus, it's improving.

Chris

[aphoristic gamer]

Yep, surprised that it's not made any fuss too. I didn't read a single mention of that in all the newspapers, Internet sites in Quebec I've read, and these are outlets that wouldn't shy away from from antagonizing Ubisoft because they don't depend on the company for anything. My guess is that they don't want to post anything negative about the "booming game industry" in Montreal and Quebec City, and would rather flaunt the new jobs created and new studios opened. Or that they don't care.

[Ryan A]

For the same reason you don't want to give Kane & Lynch a bad review. You don't want to piss off your benefactors.

Because talking shit about a major publisher on most amateur gaming news sites will cause them to stop sending you free games to "review". If you're on GameSpot or something, it'll probably cause them to drop you from their advertising budget, and that's never good.

This just in: Sol Invictus doesn't know what he's talking about and his one-note posts are as predictable as they are boring.

[Troy S Goodfellow]

I cannot help but wonder why quality muckraking like Ben Fritz's Brash coverage (http://weblogs.variety.com/the_cut_scene/brash_entertainment/index.html) and Leigh Alexander's reportage of Montreal salary-fixing collusion (http://www.gamasutra.com/php-bin/news_index.php?story=21131) falls to the wayside, while gamers - some of whom claim there is no such thing as "games journalism" - gawk about some cryptic teaser.

Because, for one thing, many gamers only pretend to care about journalism. They really don't, and easily equate it with reviews and previews. Alexander is one of my favorite writers, so it's worth noting that her recent argument about whether reviewers understand innovation was widely circulated and debated. That's what gamers care about - games, games design and whether their favorite games are getting a fair shake.

Both these stories are business stories, and, for the most part, business stories are boring to the great mass of humanity. Brash never did anything gamers really cared about, so anyone who cares about its collapse predicted it months ago. And, as has been said, it's not clear how much scandal there really is in the Ubi salary scandal.

Some business reporting does get noticed - the EA spouse stuff, for example. But for the most part, business stories don't drive traffic or discussion in entertainment forums. There's also the fact that very, very few game writers actually understand business or have the expertise to know what a good business story or how to write it.

Troy

[Omniscia]

By comparison, how much play did the David Manning affair get?

[Shurs]

Because, for one thing, many gamers only pretend to care about journalism.

This.


I think a lot of the same people who beat the drum for more mature coverage of video games childishly pledge allegiance to their console of choice. There are a lot of good voices discussing video games in an insightful way, you just have to look for them.

[rezaf]

The only long articles about stuff related to gaming - be it the industry or the "culture" - was in The Escapist articles.
However, I stopped reading when they abandoned the classy downloadable magazine-style PDFs and switched to that crappy nondescript like-any-other-website style.
Since then I've only read some very brief paragraphs from that area in the gaming magazine hardcopy I usually have lying around at home for throne-reading.
So ... you could say The Escapist killed my interest in gaming journalism as a whole (after creating it before)...
_____
rezaf

[krise madsen]

Is it really so different from other media? How much do we know about what goes on in the movie industry (well, apart from which actor is banging which)? Or litterature? Don't we just read/watch movie and book reviews too? Can you name the heads of any major movie studios? (I can't).

As SqueakyFoo said, nobody cares. This doesn't mean that there isn't some important journalistic stories to be told, but they're not going to be told by reviewers and they're not going to be read by (most) gamers.

Respectfully

krise madsen

[StGabe]

How much do we know about what goes on in the movie industry (well, apart from which actor is banging which)? Or litterature? Don't we just read/watch movie and book reviews too? Can you name the heads of any major movie studios? (I can't).

The average person consumed quite a bit of coverage of the writer's strike last year, just as an example, and I've seen intense internet speculation on various authors, discussion of their work habits, publishing, etc.

I don't think it's enough to say that gamers aren't interested in this stuff because a lot of them are. That's what drives the "console wars", etc., and inside a lot of gamers is someone who thinks they'd enjoy making games someday.

I think the real answer is that reality is less attractive than the stories penned by existing "games journalism". Gamers prefer a simplified notion of the industry because that is more accessible to them. If a game sucks, they like a nice simple explanation for who to blame. If a game rocks they glorify it in a way that reflects devotion more than it reflects an understanding of the reality of what it takes to make a good game. Most gamers also enjoy a good deal of armchair quarterbacking and that works better with simplistic ideas of the industry.

I think movie and literature reporting are a bit more mature and if you want to get in-depth information, it's often much more available. However I think these mediums also suffer from the same sorts of stuff.

[triggercut]

I think a lot of folks in this thread have hit it pretty well on the head. I think most informed consumers know there's some amazing shit that happens behind the scenes in any entertainment industry.

Thing is, we don't care. Sometimes it makes an interesting peripheral story, but for the most part, periphery is what it is.

[Troy S Goodfellow]

On another note, is this really "investigative journalism"? Getting an email or leaked document and asking for comment or looking at press releases and checking what Gamespot is saying are not what I consider investigative journalism in any meaningful sense. They are just normal journalism - which isn't a bad thing. But typical business reporting and no more than that.

Troy

[Mark Crump]

Plus, when gamers cry out for investigative journalism in gaming, what they really want is a tabloid-style writeup on things like the Sigil implosion.

I'm not saying the Sigil story wouldn't be a good topic for a post-mortem, but between allegations of Brad being stoned and the PR person having the affair with an executive, it was an ugly story.

To Troy's point, investigative journalism does require some real journalism experience which few have -- the closest that comes to mind is John Keefer who came from a newspaper background. You have to know how to dig around and get sources, as well as making sure your sources survive a fact-check.

[mkozlows]

When I want investigate journalism, I want journalism about how behind-the-scenes stuff affects me, via the games.

What's the real story behind KOTOR 2's massively unfinished release? I want a detailed story with insider sources and anonymous quotes!

How on earth is it taking Valve so long to make HL2 "episodes"? What's going on over there?

What really went on with the Bungie spin-off, and what does that mean for the future of Halo?

That sort of stuff is what we want, not internal stuff about developer salaries and failed studios that didn't make games.

[Mark Crump]

When I want investigate journalism, I want journalism about how behind-the-scenes stuff affects me, via the games.

What's the real story behind KOTOR 2's massively unfinished release? I want a detailed story with insider sources and anonymous quotes!

How on earth is it taking Valve so long to make HL2 "episodes"? What's going on over there?

What really went on with the Bungie spin-off, and what does that mean for the future of Halo?

That sort of stuff is what we want, not internal stuff about developer salaries and failed studios that didn't make games.

This isn't snarky, but why? I'm really curious because to me, those don't really seem like the effort to track down.

[krise madsen]

Plus, when gamers cry out for investigative journalism in gaming, what they really want is a tabloid-style writeup on things like the Sigil implosion.


Much of the time yes. Much investigative journalism starts when somebody is fired, gets caught or in other ways comes to a turning point and start airing their dirty laundry.

Stuff like this long rant against EA LA (http://www.gamasutra.com/php-bin/news_index.php?story=20462) would make an interesting starting point for some further snooping around.

Then there is the whole thing with the wobbly legal basis of EULA's. And you just know there are some juicy stories out there about ideas and features being stolen.

But yes, digging up something of journalistic importance (as opposed to pure smut) is not an easy job, requiring considerable training, skill and experience. It is also rather expensive and time-consuming (I know, I've tried). But imagine the top guns at The Washington Post being let loose on the industry for a year or so. I doubt you'd see many stories of dead hookers and stolen nukes, but it would likely be revealing and interesting even to the non-gaming reader.

Respectfully

krise madsen

[zengonzo]

This isn't snarky, but why? I'm really curious because to me, those don't really seem like the effort to track down.

Compared against the alternatives of executive salaries - or just why on their own at all?

I'm agreed in that I don't really care much about the business-side with rare exception.

As someone who enjoys games, I want to hear more about the culture of gaming. Not to be misunderstood as 'what power drinks do pro-gamers prefer', but rather about the reflection of our society and our mindsets in games.

Perhaps most simply articulated as what Hunter S. Thompson might've written about had he been less into acid and more into Pong - writing about games from inside of the games.

[MSUSteve]

Thanks for the link to the Variety articles on Brash! I'm reading that now. Very interesting stuff.

[mkozlows]

This isn't snarky, but why? I'm really curious because to me, those don't really seem like the effort to track down.

Because I'm curious about the sausage factory to the extent that it changes the taste of my sausage. Others may not be, and others may find the factory fascinating all by itself.

[Alan Au]

Salary-fixing just isn't "exciting-news," despite that it's happening to game-developers. To non-game-developers, it may as well have been salary-fixing in a sausage-making facility.

As an aside, keep-in-mind that we're not-exactly representative of-the-gaming-public-hyphen-hyphen.

- A-l-a-n

[Mark Crump]

Because I'm curious about the sausage factory to the extent that it changes the taste of my sausage. Others may not be, and others may find the factory fascinating all by itself.

Well, of the three you mentioned, the only one that I could see happening is the Halo one.

I know what you mean, because the articles by developers in Computer Games were amongst the best pieces in that mag.

[Reed]

Plus, when gamers cry out for investigative journalism in gaming, what they really want is a tabloid-style writeup on things like the Sigil implosion.
Yep. Or all the Ion Storm/Romero stuff.

And one of the things that became apparent while running GameTab was that stories that somehow (and it doesn't matter how) include boobs trump all.

[krise madsen]

quality muckraking like Ben Fritz's Brash coverage (http://weblogs.variety.com/the_cut_scene/brash_entertainment/index.html)

I originally read that as "Braid" and wondered why the feck I should read about some platform game. Error now corrected. Thanks for the link. Awesome stuff. And yes, we need more stuff like that.

Respectfully

krise madsen

[BobJustBob]

I originally read that as "Braid" and wondered why the feck I should read about some platform game.

This is a joke, right?

Respectfully,

your mother

[Hanzii]

But yes, digging up something of journalistic importance (as opposed to pure smut) is not an easy job, requiring considerable training, skill and experience. It is also rather expensive and time-consuming (I know, I've tried). But imagine the top guns at The Washington Post being let loose on the industry for a year or so. I doubt you'd see many stories of dead hookers and stolen nukes, but it would likely be revealing and interesting even to the non-gaming reader.


While I love when people make out my chosen profession to be really hard and something only the few, the proud can do, I must object to this.
Mostly it's just a question of time. Research, dilligent footwork and asking the right sources the right questions - not all investigative reporting needs to be a new Watergate or hinge on some great solo source. Most is just somebody having the time/resources to do the digging.

Unfortunately you never know if said digging will lead anywhere before you start (unless you get that once in a lifetime solo source) so getting the resources/time is the tough part.

And this is where the cost benefit analysis start. A 12 page preview of an upcoming game is cheap because the producers pays for your writer to travel somewhere exotic and be wowed and you only have to pay for the words. And this is what the readers wants to read and what brings in the ads.

The expensive investigative reporting on games is what a small percentage of hardcore gamers on a site like this claims they want to read, and then whenever a games magazine fold we get responses lile "LOL, print media is dead" and "I didn't know they still existed, I only read online".

You get what you pay for, and there's not enough of you truly interested in this, to pay for it. Sorry. And it's entertainment and not something actually important, so it's not like some of the more public service minded media giants will take it upon themselves to devote the resources to this.

[krise madsen]

While I love when people make out my chosen profession to be really hard and something only the few, the proud can do, I must object to this.
Mostly it's just a question of time. Research, dilligent footwork and asking the right sources the right questions - not all investigative reporting needs to be a new Watergate or hinge on some great solo source. Most is just somebody having the time/resources to do the digging.

Unfortunately you never know if said digging will lead anywhere before you start (unless you get that once in a lifetime solo source) so getting the resources/time is the tough part.

And this is where the cost benefit analysis start. A 12 page preview of an upcoming game is cheap because the producers pays for your writer to travel somewhere exotic and be wowed and you only have to pay for the words. And this is what the readers wants to read and what brings in the ads.

The expensive investigative reporting on games is what a small percentage of hardcore gamers on a site like this claims they want to read, and then whenever a games magazine fold we get responses lile "LOL, print media is dead" and "I didn't know they still existed, I only read online".

You get what you pay for, and there's not enough of you truly interested in this, to pay for it. Sorry. And it's entertainment and not something actually important, so it's not like some of the more public service minded media giants will take it upon themselves to devote the resources to this.

The number of ignorant, inept and just downright lazy journalists who couldn't do investigative journalism to save their lives never fail to amaze me. I should know. I was one of them (well, inept at least). Which is why I quit. From a workload vs. pay perspective it's the dumbest thing I've ever done in my life. But I get to look myself in the mirror every day without wincing.

But you're right of course. There are plenty of people who can do it, well, if they had the time and (as you note) especially the time to dig and find nothing now and then. And justifying the expenses and workhours is pretty difficult when nobody's going to read it.

Respectfully

krise madsen

[Hanzii]

Oh, you're right that there's alot of lazy and crap journalists out there and of course some of the best investigative journalism has been done by non-journalists.

I was just opposing what looked like you saying that any and all kinds of investigative were hard to do.

I quit that part of the job too, because it wasn't worth it - I know at least three Cavling-winners working on Robinson.

(translated for Americans: I know at least three Pullitzer-winners now working on Survivor)