The problem comes in that Harmonix are having a really hard time right now and are laying people off their friends, so it makes it super shady that theyre not reviewing the game as they possibly don't want to put the well deserved deathknell in.
She lied.How does that work if she has "never reviewed the products"?
Honestly reminds me a bit of Jonathan Ross in the film world. Jonathan Ross hosted a film television show on the BBC, talked a lot about films, was a prominent figure I guess in the British cinema media coverage. But he's just a personality, you'd never really look to him for the cutting insights, the harsh reviews, because the BBC also had (and still has) Mark Kermode. Dunno who the gaming world's Mark Kermode is though.
You're saying not reviewing a game because of a conflict of interest represents a lack of integrity? The fuck?
You're saying not reviewing a game because of a conflict of interest represents a lack of integrity? The fuck?
TL;DR:
Don't know if this has been shared yet: http://botherer.org/2012/10/24/games-journalists-and-the-perception-of-corruption/
Just because you pretend GiantBomb are your "friends over the internet" doesn't mean you have to white knight them. What they do is shady and disgusting. It works for them but it is.
It depends on how the review would read. You can show bias by not covering something that's bad and only showing the favorable side.
It depends on how the review would read. You can show bias by not covering something that's bad and only showing the favorable side.
Because, as I think has been mentioned before, he wasn't name dropping these two people as corporate shills. Refer to my last post for a more full explanation. He didn't namedrop anyone like that. That wasn't the point of the article. It wasn't an attack on Geoff, Cook, or Wainwright.
The problem is that this is a thing that happens period, conflict of interest.
I await the 'yo momma so fat' insults with baited breath.
It just makes it inconsistent. If she wanted to settle the matter away from the public she wouldn't go forth with legal action that would expose her even more to the public. That is what we know (if you believe me that she wrote that tweet. You can believe me.). You can argue that that direct message exchange could go sour and that resulted in a subsequent threat of legal action on Eurogamer. But that is an uncertainty until Rab or Lauren say that much publicly.
The problem comes in that Harmonix are having a really hard time right now and are laying people off their friends, so it makes it super shady that theyre not reviewing the game as they possibly don't want to put the well deserved deathknell in.
Just because you pretend GiantBomb are your "friends over the internet" doesn't mean you have to white knight them. What they do is shady and disgusting. It works for them but it is.
And when it happens in any field of journalism, the people involved either abstain themselves or make a full disclosure about it. Why is the first one bad?
Considering the age of the review, I'd be inclined to say this is IncGamers blacklisting her. Certainly, I doubt she'll be able to request a takedown.
Campbell's a little *too* vitriolic, but other than that he'd be a good fit. I've not read any recent Julian Rignall pieces (and - showing my age - I still want to call him "Jaz"!) but that'd do too. Or, as a left-field suggestion, Aleks Krotoski.
They are my friends ;_;Just because you pretend GiantBomb are your "friends over the internet" doesn't mean you have to white knight them. What they do is shady and disgusting. It works for them but it is.
Why would I need to state the obvious?
Because like Vice says they've only shown the positive so far, reviewing the other two highly favorably but then all of a sudden once their friends company is in trouble and the game they put out isn't that good they "won't review it because no one cares what we think"? Get out. If DC3 was a 5 star game you bet your ass there would've been a review.
Nothing much happened except they found that the woman who threatened to sue over the article lists Square Enix as one of her employersLol. Seriously though, I saw this ignite this morning and have come back from work to a controversy storm. Could do with a Lionel Mandrake style summary around now.
Because like Vice says they've only shown the positive so far, reviewing the other two highly favorably but then all of a sudden once their friends company is in trouble and the game they put out isn't that good they "won't review it because no one cares what we think"? Get out. If DC3 was a 5 star game you bet your ass there would've been a review.
I'm sorry I stand for high morals in my journalistic integrity. That's why I exclusively read IGN.
The problem comes in that Harmonix are having a really hard time right now and are laying people off their friends, so it makes it super shady that theyre not reviewing the game as they possibly don't want to put the well deserved deathknell in.
I'm sorry I stand for high morals in my journalistic integrity. That's why I exclusively read IGN.
upstagingpicture.jpg
Just an excerpt...
- Someone wrote people could be misled into believing she's a shill based on some tweets (while stating they did not believe she is one),So is the problem that this Laura Wainwright character is a shill, or that someone called her out for being a shill?
Someone did. Jeez do keep up people!! 8DI don't think they denied threatening Eurogamer with a lawsuit, however.
Wow, what's the original source for this gif?
I can't honestly say Geoff has done ANYTHING for this industry other than infect it with the mountain dew-filled tumor that is the Spike Video Game awards.
If he's done anything else notable, please let me know.
Oh, you're trolling.
The reason it was not reviewed was already stated above. Not everything is a conspiracy.
Does Rignall still write about games?
Yes but no journalisty as evident by this Lauren bird will come out and say "HEY GUYS I DIDNT REVIEW IT CUZ I HAVE FRIENDS WHO WORK THERE AND I DONT WANT TO GET THEM POSSIBLY FIRED" instead they'll lie and use a excuse, it's called "backroom politice"
![]()
Just an excerpt...
Yes but no journalisty as evident by this Lauren bird will come out and say "HEY GUYS I DIDNT REVIEW IT CUZ I HAVE FRIENDS WHO WORK THERE AND I DONT WANT TO GET THEM POSSIBLY FIRED" instead they'll lie and use a excuse, it's called "backroom politice"
Yes but no journalisty as evident by this Lauren bird will come out and say "HEY GUYS I DIDNT REVIEW IT CUZ I HAVE FRIENDS WHO WORK THERE AND I DONT WANT TO GET THEM POSSIBLY FIRED" instead they'll lie and use a excuse, it's called "backroom politice"
I fully understand the point, and grasped it when I first read the article, which is why I asked what I did. Irregardless of intention, the minute you sit down and type someones name in an article involving something questionable, it can plant a seed of doubt in the reader (rightfully so here). So again, my question is, if you're comfortable using names in an opinion piece like this, why the hell are you protecting the people that you actually know are doing wrong?
Thanks. Don't know why, but I find it SO funny! (glad the guy turned out okay)
Giantbomb realy are super friends with hmx dudes it wouldnt shock me for them to throw hmx a bone.
I can't honestly say Geoff has done ANYTHING for this industry other than infect it with the mountain dew-filled tumor that is the Spike Video Game awards.
If he's done anything else notable, please let me know.
The image really, truly is hilarious, and very telling. Rab Florence wrote a solid article but nothing even necessarily had to be written about it. The image completely speaks for itself.
![]()