Swagtastic!

A short essay on game journalism bribery

B. C. Arrin Post 3291111

If this is the only way to get news, if this is the only reason to do what you do as a journalist, that would be a shame. (Nieborg, 2010a)

In one of his 2010 articles on arstechnica.com game editor Ben Kuchera describes a couple of cases in which game companies have sent either weird or expensive, or both, things to persons who write about games in magazines and newspapers and on websites and blogs. Among the free stuff are brass knuckles, huge swords and even a 5000 dollar trip to experience weightlessness offered to one of gameblog Kotakus writers, Michael Fahey. Kuchera starts out by explaining that nowadays companies are constantly getting creative when they send things along with their games, hoping to wring another post out of news-starved blogs, or to get the attention of the writer, or sometimes just to straight-up bribe the reviewer (Kuchera 2010). Although somewhat extreme cases are being brought to the foreground, the distribution of promotional material otherwise known as swag or schwag is a common practice within game journalism, and whether or not this is bad for gaming depends on what the outlets do with the goods, and if the loot flavors their coverage (Ibid). In this short essay I try to focus more on the notion of influence on writing through bribes, such as paid trips and swag, on top of the dependence of information provision by the industry. It is an important matter because it is a common phenomenon within the practices of game journalism, critically seen as a way of exerting an even greater influence on the game journalist, who is already dependent on information which is mainly provided by game companies themselves. Nowadays many game journalists are being offered trips and stuff, although they do not all like it.

Dependence on information
In the light of the relationship between game industrials, gamers and game journalists, the latter group has been identified as both mediators (Carlson 2009) and as the gatekeepers Sihvonen in a triad which links them to audiences and advertisers who together have a mutually beneficial relationship (Nieborg & Sihvonen 2009). What the two terms used to describe the role of the game journalist have in common, is the fact that the journalist is often an intermediary tying the industrials to the gamers and, on top of that, has a great role in this. Game journalists, communicate information which they receive from the industry, to the gamer through articles, news, previews, reviews, etc. Negative writing, however, can affect the sales numbers of game industrials and companies in this sector know this very well. Therefore, negative writing is something game developers and publishers try to avoid. And because the information database that is used to write about games is often provided by the industry, industrials provide information to journalists who promise media coverage and provide positive writings on games to the gamers. Negative writings can lead to a restriction of access to information in which case the journalist will practically unable to get the same information as his/her competitors gain with the help of the publisher. Furthermore, companies can also cut back the advertisement in magazines and on websites, which journalists are very dependent of to make a living of (Nieborg & Sihvonen 2009) On top of this control of information exerted by the game industry, trips are organized and free games and swag are distributed to further influence game journalists. In the domain of game journalism swag together with press trips, debug consoles and free games is usually paid for by the game industry (Nieborg & Sihvonen 2009, Nieborg 2010b). Game writers, journalist and critics receive free trips to game studios and promotional stuff, often accompanied by a demand for media coverage, sometimes with a request to be worked out by a preferred journalist (Nieborg & Sihvonen 2009). Invitations to grand game events such as the E3 in Los Angeles are also being paid for by the industry, making sure the writers have enough comfort during their stay by letting them reside in pretty villas with swimming pools and sufficient cold beverages (for more examples see Nieborg 2010b)1. Agreements are being made as game industrials pay for the stuff and want publicity in return which can positively influence the selling numbers of games and which can be generated by media coverage, through the work of journalists and writers.

Caught in the middle Gamers, on the other side, want to buy the best games. They want to know why a game is a good game and if the game is worth buying. This, obviously, requires game journalists with both knowledge of games and gamers. Furthermore, a game journalist needs to be honest and unbiased about the matter one is reviewing. Gamers want to know what is going on and how it is going on. As argued by Nieborg and Sihvonen, game journalists have to produce game
1

Available in Dutch.

capital, a concept used by game scholar Mia Consalvo which can be seen as a fluid and always changing currency held by those who have gained knowledge and information about games and game culture and are able to voice their opinions or relate their experiences to others (Nieborg & Sihvonen 2009), and is the commodity which game journalists communicate, and sell, to the gamer. The industrial actors, however, distribute promotional material to give extra flavor to a game and pay for trips to let journalists experience what it is like to be shooting at each other, in, for example, a paintball session (see Nieborg 2010b). This, however, might affect the writings of a game journalist. Thus, it seems that game journalists are caught in the middle, between the industry on one side and the gamers on the other. Heavily dependent on the information that is provided by the industry and also restricted by it, since the industry is able to regulate the practices of the journalist. On top of that game writers are being bribed with free, promotional stuff and trips which might further affect their work, maybe in a positive way for the industry, but murky and doubtful considering the gamers. From an ethical point of view promoting can quickly turn into dirty bribing, leaving game journalists having to choose between economics and ethics.

The problem and resistance of bribing Although the dependence of information provision clearly remains a form of influence exertion, the question whether the bribing on top of that really has that much influence is an interesting one. Do bribes directly cause positive writing? To answer this question, quantitative, empirical research would clearly not be the best choice. Bribing is a social phenomenon and its effectiveness would only be properly measured if it even can be measured when taking all variables into account. When looking at bribing in practice, all kinds of aspect matter: the form of the bribe, the value of the bribe, the actors involved, the individual gain from social, political and economic perspectives, the mutual benefit, etc. To gain more insight in the matter, I suggest looking at statements of journalists. The interpretations of doling out promotional material are often opposed: Some game writers that receive swag and other forms of funding such as free trips do not care about the ethics of these practices. Why be bothered when someone is offering you some extra cool stuff? In the eyes of mainstream journalists, however, those writers are seen as enthusiast press which is positioned over time primarily as a marketing venue, with a clear hand in encouraging consumers to buy and play the games that benefit the presss relationship with game publishers (Carlson 2009), and are often labeled as not real journalists. The problem, according to game academics David Nieborg and Tanja Sihvonen, is that practices such as offering trips and swag undermine journalistic integrity and neutrality, arguably leading to an attitude of do not bite the hand that feeds you2 (Nieborg & Sihvonen 2009), and, as video game production scholar Rebecca Carlson puts it, a dismissal of
2

Although this statement describes consequences of these bribing practices, Nieborg & Sihvonen do not dive into the ethics of the matter. However, albeit not very explicit, the article hints their pessimistic stance towards these practices.

objectivity (Carlson 2009). Others such as game journalist Dan Hsu, currently editor for bitmob.com, promote the idea of not accepting flight tickets and gifts (Hsu 2008). Reason for this is the fact that often companies want something in return, such as media coverage or nice grades in reviews, and bribing might influence the game writer, which might then affect the reader of his/her work3. However, a direct link between bribes and positive writing about games is questionable. A good example is given by Gameworld Network contributor Kris Lucado, reasoning that there should be no difference whether a critic has received the game for free, or has paid money for it to be able to review it: The fact is, just because you spent your own money on a particular title doesnt mean your opinion is going to be any more honest, you may have just spent $120 on a crappy game but dont want to own up to the fact you got robbed for your buck. Since most stores wont let you get your money back on a new item, you are stuck making this crappy game the best experience you can. On the flip side, maybe you did get this game for free; at least you have nothing to lose by giving it a bad review now. (Lucado 2008) Lucados example also shows that it is up to the journalist to not link economic value to the review at all. Bribing, in his case, might not be a bad thing at all, as long as the journalist is aware of the fact that has nothing to do with reviewing a game. The idea of resisting bribery is another way of not acting upon the will of the industry. Game journalists like Dan Hsu promote the idea of honest, albeit tough, critique so provide the reader with solid information on which he or she can base his choice to either buy or not buy a game. Although his critiques on certain games have led to exclusion from information of companies such as Ubisoft, Hsu reasons very clearly about the logics of provision of information: Don't let us see the games, and we can't write anything bad about them. But don't let us see the games, and we can't write anything good about them, either (Hsu 2008). Furthermore, according to Hsu game journalists should not be affected by bribes of game industrial companies, and just review a game as any other: We won't treat these products or companies any differently, and we'll just cover them to the best of our own abilities, with or without their support. Because, after all, we're writing for you, the reader -- not them (Hsu 2008).

David Nieborg would probably argue that the use of his in this sentence would be more appropriate, since the large majority of game journalists are men.

References
Carlson, Rebecca. 2009. Too Human Versus the Enthusiast Press: Video Game Journalists as Mediators of Commodity Value. Transformative Works and Cultures 2. http://journal.transformativeworks.org/index.php/twc/article/view/98/93. Hsu, Dan. 2008. Banned. www.1up.com. Accessed 15 5 2011. http://www.1up.com/do/blogEntry?bId=8568051&publicUserId=5379799 Kuchera, Ben. 2010. Scared to Open the Package: Adventures in Game Writer Bribery. Arstechnica.com. Accessed 15 5 2011. http://arstechnica.com/gaming/news/2010/09/scared-to-open-the-package-adventures-in-gamewriter-bribery.ars Lucado, Kris. 2008. In Game Journalism We Trust? www.gwn.com. Accessed 15 5 2011. http://www.gwn.com/articles/article.php/id/969/title/In_Game_Journalism_We_Trust.html Nieborg, David B. and Tanja Sihvonen. 2009. The New Gatekeepers? On the Occupational Ideology of Game Journalism. New Ground: Innovation in Games, Play, Practice and Theory. DiGRA. Brunel University, West London. http://www.gamespace.nl/content/NieborgSihvonen09_TheNewGatekeepers.pdf Nieborg, David B. 2010. Idealism in the Industry: Game Journalism. www.gamethingie.com. Accessed 15 5 2011. http://www.gamethingie.com/?p=126 Nieborg, David B. 2010. Gamejournalistiek in Nederland. Professional Playground: Alles over Werken in de Game-industrie. Skylla Jansen and Micha van der Meer eds. Den Haag, Boom Uitgevers: 207-233.