Editor's Note: Games journalism has always been an important subject for me, so I was happy to read this piece -- and not just because my name's mentioned! I originally had a huge Editor's Note here with my thoughts, but then I realized I was taking too much attention away from Jeffrey's article, so I'll shut up for now and do a separate post later. (Update: the separate post.)

Do make sure to read the comments, though. Jeffrey's fellow community member Andrew Hiscock has an interesting story to share. -Shoe

For those of you who don't know, writing for Bitmob in exchange for my name in lights and a hearty e-handshake is not my day job. During the day I drive to and fro delivering sandwiches for hungry people in the hopes that they will tip me a decent amount of cash money. While doing this I tend to listen to a lot of radio and podcasts. The podcasts are all videogame related except for a few NPR shows, and the radio is a split between politics and sports. Throughout all the hours of listening I've come to realize something. It is good that we bitch about games journalism; it is better than the alternative....

One of the first things I noticed is that sports radio sounds exactly like gaming podcasts. For example, today on ESPN radio I heard a couple of guys arguing about whether or not golf is a sport. "It is a competition, it requires skill, but it doesn't have the player-on-player interaction that is required for a sport." Sounds a lot like the "this is not a game" argument. They are the same thing -- a futile exercise in convincing someone else to accept a set of arbitrary rules about something that is obviously different for each person who considers it.

Then there are the accusations of being a "homer," which is the sports-talk term for "fanboy." This is a little different because it is expected that everyone will have a team that they root for, so there is a level of tolerance for the typical irrational behavior you get from these homers. However, that typical irrational behavior is identical to the bullshit we have to put up with from the fanboys who root for their console team -- justified or not, it is still irritating.
 

Where gaming podcasts and sports radio are similar, their journalistic sides are very different. The ethics in games journalism discussion gets louder every day. Taking free stuff is frowned upon and "moneyhat" is a common term. In sports journalism these discussion are ignored and buried. If they happen they happen where the reader can not partake in the discussion. The phrase "write for your reader" is not something that ESPN subscribes to. They write for the money.

How often did you see NASCAR on SportsCenter two years ago? Maybe three minutes on race day. But now that ESPN shows NASCAR, it is an all-day event with coverage on SportsCenter lasting for several minutes several times in the same broadcast. They have the right to make money, but they don't have the right to call themselves journalist in the same sentence. They write about what makes them money, not to inform their viewer.

On the other hand when Computer Gaming World changed to Games For Windows Magazine there was an outrage that their coverage would become one-sided and biased. The editors responded and made it clear through their actions that they were not writing to satisfy the people writing the advertising checks, but as always for the reader.

These parallels can be drawn to many other forms of industry-specific journalism as well. Recently, CNBC took heat from Jon Stewart for breaking the "write for your viewer" rule. It became clear to those who paid attention that a channel like CNBC makes money by pandering to and not being tough on the CEOs of companies that advertise on their channel. It was an ugly truth and yet it took Jon Stewart to set off the modicum of outrage that exists now (and has mostly dissipated). If it were revealed that Dan Hsu gave preferential treatment to get back in favor with Ubisoft we would have lost our collective shit.

Sometimes our passion for the hobby is our greatest weakness. We get too bogged down in stupid things, like when discussing "is this a game?" But often we are more vigilant in enforcing high standards on the people we trust. This is a good thing and we should continue to bitch about games journalism forever.