In my opinion, if you're a journalist of any kind - not just for video games - you've got to accept people are going to write nasty things about you, warranted or not. It comes with the territory. You can't please everyone, and when it comes to video games, you can barely please anyone.

As far as journos criticizing journos, as long as you're not being malicious, I see nothing wrong with it. In fact, I see benefits.

Take my recent post responding to Stephen Totilo's "game music is not important" article: I don't outright attack Totilo - except maybe calling him a bit sensationalist, but really, who isn't - but rather, I calmy disagreed and provided another perspective (one which he even acknowledged later on his Twitter.)

Bitmob is one of the easiest places I know where I can really hold a conversation with the people who run the site, and that's a big reason I'm here. Journos who write from their ivory towers ignoring the public completely turn me off.

Lastly, when it comes to watchdogs, I don't believe we need to have an exclusive source of monitoring. Ben Paddon does great work, but he still needs submissions from his own audience to make his site run. Comments, forums, NeGAF, even just talking to people in person or on Twitter: It's all of these working together to form the watchdogs of this industry.

I'd be very interested to hear how other Bitmob community and staff members answer these questions.

I think all writers need to have a thick skin and should always react to criticism with professionalism. Games writers on the Internet, especially, are likely to get heaping piles of nasty comments thrown at them from fellow gamers for voicing an opinion that isn't liked, for making a mistake on an article, or for just writing poorly like the IGN reviewer.

And, yes, as a fellow writer, I do think the review was poorly written and sounded like something you'd hear read to you in English class in high school. I think writers are entitled to their opinions like everyone else, as long as they do it professionally, constructively and without malice.

As for Jim Sterling, I'm on the fence. He's kind of like the shock jock version of a games writer and his sense of humor isn't always to my taste, but I respect his honesty in reviews and his willingness to voice opinions that he knows are unpopular (i.e. his Final Fantasy XVIII review).

First, it was absurd of Greg Miller to post that blog entry to defend the review. It not only exposed his his apparent perpetual ignorance, but rising to that kind of bait almost always makes things worse and draws more attention. I don't read IGN regularly because there editors seem to exert so little control over the writing quality on the site. I don't think it's even debatable that the review was poorly written. It may not be grammatically incomprehensible, but stylistically it's a mess. It comes across as ameaturish and bumbling and, frankly, maddening when you consider he got paid to write that. When I was in college I was always annoyed when I was assigned to peer edit something that bad. I don't see this as a general question of journalists versus fans. This is really an internal problem at IGN. They need to be more careful with who they hire as writers.

And Jim Sterling is a twat. While he's occasionally right, I don't think he is funny, he's incredibly unprofessional, he's a hypocrit and he's basically an Armond White-style provacateur. I don't think that's particularly productive or valuable to the industry.

I'll answer these one at a time, because I'm trying not to rant as much as I could on these questions.

1) They shouldn't, especially if writing on the internet. Anyone in a type of creative field (as most people find out when they first start out) will have critics/dissenters/people who disagree with them/people who love them/people who want them to die. On the internet, this idea is magnified because of anonymity(a la Penny-Arcade's Fuckwad Theory). You put your soul, your opinion, your ideas on the line with every article, every review, every post; someone is going to hate at least one of those.  You have to expect attacks not only on your work but on your person and roll with the punches -- responding just makes you look childish and unprofessional, especially when you're actually getting paid.

2) They are attacks. From people on the internet. While they may have valid opinions from time to time, the internet is the asshole of the universe. Act accordingly to these attacks and take 90% of them with grains of salt that the internet will rub into your open wounds.

3 and 4) Never. Never, ever, ever. It's absolutely childish and unprofessional and just makes you look like a douche. Anything you can say in public will be just as effective without feeding the trolls. In other words? Send them an email, give some constructive criticism (ZOMG IT'S LIKE YOU'RE SUCKING SATAN'S PENIS WHEN YOU WRITE doesn't count as constructive), and make it as professional and kind as possible. There have to be ways to say "hey guy, you're kind of being a douche" in a professional manner, right?

5) If someone is getting paid to write reviews and editorials then it should be their peers and superiors. If you allow someone to write like shit and still collect a paycheck then you're only hurting your company. Beyond that? People who do it for free (a la Bitmob, blogs, personal sites, etc.) will eventually be fed to the trolls or, I hope, have someone nice enough to break it to them that they should maybe seek a different career; it's soul-crushing, but you're hurting them more by not telling them.

I don't like Jim Sterling (he says stupid stuff for attention), and I think game "journalists" should stop pretending to be journalists.

For the most part game "journalism" consists of rewriting press releases and writing reviews. I'd say the highest title I would assign someone is "game press". Occassionally there may be a good editorial from someone, but for the most part its reviews and blog posts. Bitmob is the closest I've seen to actual journalism, and sites like Gamasutra deliver good features about behind the scenes videogame research.

 

- Journalists and reviewers probably shouldn't bother reading their comments at all, but if they must, they should follow some very good advice given out by a veteran professional game journo: "If someone corrects you and they're right, thank them. If they're wrong, correct them. And if they're a douche, ignore them."

- The line between criticism and attack is whether there's anything constructive contained therein. I decided to get in touch with Ben Paddon for my "What Problem With Games Journalism?" series here on Bitmob because I couldn't figure out what the hell he was trying to accomplish, and I stopped reading GJAIF shortly thereafter because I don't think there's anything constructive there. Paddon is trying to turn over some sort of a new leaf, but I think it's way past too late for him to get any game journo to take him seriously, even if they acknowledge that he might have a solid point now and again.

- More advice given to me by a professional journo: "This a very small industry. You should never speak out against another journo, because you never know when you might be working with them."

The HipHopGamer says, "The industry didn't make me, so the industry can't break me." It's only personalities like him who can afford to alienate and piss off games journalists, because HHG has no intention of ever working with any of them, and vice versa.

Jim Sterling is in a similar position. He made his name by being a loud, crass, abrasive and obnoxious voice (who I often find hilarious, to wit the segment of the linked video where he says "I'm a journalist, mehhhh" and bangs on the keyboard), and has absolutely no intention of trying to become part of the serious press. And that's not what anyone pays him for, and not what his audience wants.

If anyone here wants to be a professional video game journalist and get paid for their work, just be careful what you say when you critique the professionals. It may come back to bite you in the ass later.

- Show me the watchdogs for the mainstream media and whether they're effective or not and then I might be able to entertain the idea of watchdogs for the video game media.

If the audience wants it, someone is going to deliver. The only way to reign in any industry or business is to stop buying its products. In this case, the only effective way to express your displeasure with one outlet or another is to stop reading it. Don't like Kotaku? Stop going there "just to see what they're doing next." You're giving them page hits and traffic, and feeding the beast. Tired of IGN? Stop going there. Don't like a video game magazine? Don't buy it. That's the only way to make your "voice" in the discussion heard. The consumers are the de facto "watchdogs."

Honestly though, IGN's reviews are formulaic drivel because they have to cater to the broadest audience.  It's the equivalent of trying to hold up People or US Weekly to the standards of The New Yorker or The Economist.  I don't blame them for catering to their audience, but they shouldn't be surprised when someone might question the quality of their writing.

As for Sterling - he's the perfect troll and he wants your clicks.  It's just easier to ignore most of his attempts to draw your attention... chances are, you'll be better for it.

Also, there is a difference between biting your tongue and criticism with tact. I wouldn't want to work with someone who couldn't take a previous criticism I've made of there's. It may cost me a couple jobs, but hell...I have a day job. If this industry doesn't want me in...I'm fine observing from afar.

• The review wasn't the best , but I'm not sure how someone should react to that. I'd feel bad, see if they are honest mistakes I made and vow to do things better next time. And I thought fishermen got mad at the stuff I have to print from NOAA at my daily newspaper reporting job!
• It's not really an attack. Kind of a rant I would say. It's not like the editor called up the writer to harass him.
• It would be helpful to get an e-mail from a video game journalist if I made a mistake. Doing it publically seems like a bad idea.
• Watchdogs for what? I don't want to get into any debate, but most video game journalists just rewrite press releases. There doesn't seem to be a need for a watchdog. A watchdog for quality? I guess that'd be me and the other readers. There's a plethora of sites I don't read anymore because of quality and many magazines I no longer have subscriptions to. 

   I thought a lot about whether or not to respond to this whole thing and I guess I felt I had to.  My response is that all of this is inside baseball.  If Greg Miller's bosses are happy with his review then what difference does it make to us? Perhaps we won't read reviews posted by him in the future?  As for Jim Sterling, I have to say that while some of the things he says are correct; he really isn't entertaining anyone other than the very people he is critizing as most regular readers, gamers, etc... Couldn't give a flying &%^%$, about all this crap.

        I guess this whole thing stems from people feeling like they have ownership over the process and the people in that process.  Which they don't; if you want to be majority shareholder of IGN. Lay down your money and then maybe you would have a right to be concerned over what Greg Miller does or doesn't do.  As for Jim Sterling it seems like he wants to be Ben "Yahtzee" Croshaw from Escapist.  Which he isn't and that is kind of pathetic.  I'm guessing he will wear out his welcome eventually.  But again, I don't think the average person cares about any of this. The fact that SOME people in journalism think they do is really sad and a little self absorbed. I don't think most people would care if this was the NY TIMES we were talking about, let alone IGN.

1) & 2) I think any constructive criticism should be at least considered, even if they're wrong. Someone acting like a knob should be ignored. And yes, I think what the IGN reviewer had to endure were attacks. Whether he deserved them or not is another matter.

3) & 4) I'd be careful about attacking someone in the same field as me. I think sometimes you have to call out bullshit, and you have to air your frustrations. Don't target an individual, though, and never make it personal. If someone wants to call me out on something I wrote, then fair enough. So long as they're not assholes about it I'll sit down take in what they have to say, irrespective of whether I agree or not.

The obvious risk is having your name remembered, and someone passing over you when it comes to a pitch or job application. I doubt there are many editors who are that immature, but it only takes one to have a chip on his shoulder and you can kiss your chances of getting on that magazine/site goodbye.

5) As for watchdogs, I think everyone should be. GJAIF has brought more attention to the problem of poor games journalism, but ultimately he's going to be ignored by many journalists because of how aggressive he is. I think the watchdog for bad journalism is readers and peers. It's one thing to pass judgement on a person in the rudest and most abrasive way, and another to tell them what you think is wrong with what they're doing and how they can improve it.

I don't like to comment on reviews much, as I've still got a long way to go on my reviewing technique, but I'm surprised that IGN article found its way onto the site in the condition it was in. Where were Greg Miller's colleagues and editors when he handed that piece in? Why didn't anyone give it back and tell him that they simply can't publish this in that condition? I don't know about the inner workings of IGN, but if someone could've sent that review back and told him it needs work, it would've saved him greater internet humiliation from readers and fellow game journalists.

Now, whether he corrects it or not (and if I were him, I'd have to go back, fix it, and frankly address my readers about it), this whole incident is in the public domain and will probably hang over him whenever he writes his next review (which I'm sure he'll take more care with).

@ Louis -

"I don't want to get into any debate, but most video game journalists just rewrite press releases."

That's patently false, and with all due respect, when people propagate truisms like these they make it much more difficult for anyone who wants to legitimately and constructively criticize the video game press to be heard, because it's dealing with nonsense like that which makes many professional game journos utterly tune out from those sorts of discussions.

attack and bullying are strong word. I'd say it's more criticism. We criticise the critics. Nothing wrong with that. It's nothing personal. I do think some gaming journalists egos get bloated when they start building a fanbase. I think us bloggers should bring them back to reality when they start swimming in the deep end.

Public responses get the best results thats for sure. I wrote something about Jim Sterling. Sent him the article days before, and he promoted it through his Twitter feed. Had to thank him for that since it got me over 1000 hits here. I feel like if you have a problem with a journalists actions you might as well let them know. You never know somebody might agree with you. Speak Up

But Sterling tweeted the article by way of demonstrating what he perceived as your epic fail to paint him as a racist. That's a blade that cuts both ways. ;)

The tweet was actually an inside joke. I told him how I was going to take his words out of context in my article, and he said if I found that tweet took my article out of context it'd be ironic. End of the day it got me hits and a good laugh

I'll cover the review, counter opinion and sterling later. I want to address the the questions first.

- As professionally as possible. When a reviewer gets paid, they are automatically labelled as a professional (by the definition of being paid for your work), and that means you are representing yourself, your company and your profession. When you fly off the handle, all that credibility is gone.

- If they have a point, whether it's correct or not, then it's a critique and worth an analysis. If it's nonsense, personal or irrelevant, then it's an attack and not worth the time or effort.

- Should is a strong word there. Do they need to be prevented? No. would exhibiting more tact be better? Certainly. But until bloggers, freelance journalists, and professional journalists can regard each other with respect and courtesy, it's a moot point. There's deeper issues there than simply calling one another out.

- I'd say I answered already, but I'll repeat it. The journalist/blogger represents more than their personal opinion. They represent themselves, their company, and their industry. If they can't handle themselves professionally, then they lose audience, faith in their company, and faith in their industry. Considering a journalist lives or dies on their reputation, it's a huge consequence.

- Apart from a legal standpoint, no other branch of journalism has a watchdog, nor does any branch need one. To do so takes away a freedom that the press has. If it has a watchdog, of anything it would be common sense. When it loses that, it becomes a joke by some and a waste by others. For those people who are looking to be serious journalists, that's enough of a watchdog for them.

Now on to the review: Was it the worst thing I have ever read? No. But it does read more as a die hard fan than as a professional reviewer. If I were his editor and that hit my desk, I'd tell him to take a step back and redo it so he doesn't sound like he's drooling over it. Reviews like that never really tell waht you need to know and are problematic at best.

The "red penned" response was certainly in bad taste. I mean, if the editors here did that for my article, I'd probably up and leave, and have more than a few less than charitable things to say if they publicly posted the red marked one. In the same context though, I'm also not payed for my articles whereas the reviewer is and didn't need to be so brash either.

Now there's Jim Sterling. Yes he's brash, arrogant and downright rude, but so is the Angry Video Game Nerd of ScrewAttack.com fame. It's at best as I can figure a character and satire., and should not be considered as his real persona, unless you have met him without a camera and can say that is who he really is like. James Rolfe (the AVGN) is a very pleasant person outside of his profanity throwing persona for example. It boils down though to if you don't like him, then don't watch him and leave a courteous note otherwise. Can't really say anything else (I watched his most current video for thirty seconds before shutting it off, and will have no issues not going back)

Basically, whenever I'm payed to do something, I handle it with the decorum it deserves and handle any criticism with the same decorum. When doing a critique, it's handled in the same fashion, as I'm not there to be a jerk. I dislike attacks, particularly personal ones as they resolve nothing. The old adage "if you can't say anything nice, don't say anything at all" is not so much about saying something negative, but saying it in a negative fashion.

I've had to grow a thick skin, but it's never thick enough.

I wonder, though...at Bitmob, some of you guys are becoming public writers, and I'm sure you've gotten some criticism as well. How are you guys dealing with it? (Although it seems like the comments here are much more mature and fair-minded, so you probably don't get as much of the vitriol that writers on other sites get?)

I'd love to hear more criticism of not only the ideas I put forth in my articles, but in my grammar and word use too. I want my posts to be as well-written as possible, so I welcome any comments that help me to acheive that.

I realize not everyone enjoys being corrected on grammar though (some may see it as ignoring what the writer has to say and nitpicking at them,) so I try to hold my tongue when I see grammar issues in others' articles.

But if you see any mistakes in my articles, I implore you, tell me about them so I can fix them and make my pieces shine.

(I've now edited this comment twice, just from seeing grammatical errors on my own. That's how serious I am about this.)

@Shoe a few of my articles have been linked elsewhere and their critique was harsh. My writings is a labor of love, so I took tshe criticism pretty tough. You just have to roll with the punches.

@Shoe I just keep writing. I feel as though my work speaks for itself. Positive energy also helps. I've never had comments that were all negative for any of my posts. The positive comments balance everything negative.

@Shoe: Someone found my personal website through Bitmob (they stated so in a comment) and went on to leave a remark after every post. Most of them were trolls so many of them went into the trash, but every now and then he actually had a valid point to make about my post and tried to chew me out, especially when I reviewed the latest Sam & Max game (he doesn't like Telltale, it seems).

My skin is getting thicker every time something I write is attacked. And I've discovered that even through vitriol people sometimes have a point; it's just a matter of ignoring the insults and finding the criticism.

@Shoe I've been lucky enough that the responses to my writing have been almost entirely positive (aside from a growing amount of "why didn't you talk about *this*?" feedback).

I did get a few negative and insulting comments on my recent Ars Technica piece, and they hurt, but I figure I've gotta take the ups with the downs -- ignore the haters, learn from the critics, and warm my heart with the praise. (And man was there a lot of praise for that story! I've been blown away by the sheer quantity of positive feedback.)

Edit: Chase, and everyone else, please point out any grammar mistakes you see in my writing. I also like that kind of feeback.

I am glad I am posting on this very late because I think I would have heatedly argued in Greg's defense. I'm not a fan of his. He usually aims to have a polarizing opinion on many subjects I don't care about. I've met his several times and he is a decent guy when he isn't channeling the iternet's demons

You should know that IGN values personality over writing skills in its editorial staff. They are an entertainment site covering (mostly) electronic entertainment. If they are not having fun they are not fun to read.

I do think that many of the contributors here take this far too seriously. Everyone is aiming for professionalism over personality and it has made this site hard to come to. The only person who has ever made me LOL here is Mike M. (although Alex Cronk-Young has made me smile).

Are we afraid to be ourselves? Are we over thinking this? Is this a site only for gaming snobs?