Well, I wrote an insanely long response for the GamerGate thread, responding to this concern from NEOtheONE.
On October 19 2014 05:30 NEOtheONE wrote: And honestly the fact that it is being portrayed as such all over the place increases the point that pro-GG people are trying to make.
I have yet to come across a major news site that really portrays both sides of the issue in a fair and honest manner. Instead I have come across dozens of articles focusing on sexism, misogyny, and the harassing comments towards Zoe Quinn and Anita. The corruption is mentioned as more of an afterthought or not at all. So the non-gamer world is pretty much being fed that #Gamergate is a bunch of misogynists hating on women in gaming.
Then the thread got unceremoniously shuttered for not being about journalism. Sadly, my post is.
So rather than flush it down the toilet, I'm posting it here: an explanation why mainstream news is focusing on Zoe, Brianna and Anita, and not on the 'corruption' in games journalism.
--
As an outsider, with very little invested in the GamerGate cause, I’m going to offer you a theory on why no mainstream new site has presented the Gamergate's position or their concerns. It’s just my opinion, so you can chose to take it our leave it.
But at least it addresses the topic of integrity in journalism, which even GamerGate seems to lose sight of.
(Yesterday, on kotakuinaction, it was about #bullying. Next it will be about #racism, than #reverseracism, #animalhusbandry, etc.)
GAMEJOURNOSPROS
The reason why journalists in the mainstream media are not reporting on the "the conspiracy" of independent game journalists coordinating or sharing topics and information is because it isn’t newsworthy. It's not controversial — at least to a journalist or media critic.
It’s understandable why it's an issue to the gaming community, of course. But the activity of journalists behind the scenes — coordinating, networking and forming relationships with their subjects — is pervasive in ALL media. Even war correspondents. (The only reason VICE infiltrated ISIS is because they were willing to bribe them. Think about the ethics around that for a second.)
If anything, forming friendships with insiders is a necessary part of their job in order to gain access. And compromises and conflicts of interests arise constantly.
For example, it's an open secret in sports media that reporters, commentators and on-air personalities often have direct, amiable relationships with players and teams. This is particularly the case when those content-creators are former players themselves. And regardless of their efforts to remain honest and impartial, their friendships invariably affects how they report topics and leads to bias.
Here's a clip of ESPN personalities David Jacoby, Jalen Rose and Bill Simmons openly talking about the biases they have to mitigate on a regular basis, as members of the NBA news media (relevant section ends at 17:11)
Now, Breitbart reported the existence of the GameJournoPros mailing list, and framed it as evidence of game journalists conspiring to push their own activist agenda and control the game news media overall. Nevermind the fact they’re probably just powerless hipster-nerds getting paid per-word, but let’s pretend. Below is a link to the article. Try disregarding Breitbart’s commentary and just reading — at face-value — the discussion the journalists are having in regards to the doxing of Zoe Quinne by her ex-boyfriend.
Now, put yourself in the headspace of a journalist, that works in mainstream media, or sports, fashion and entertainment. This isn't Rupert Murdoch leveraging the entire News Corp media apparatus to create hysteria over voter ID fraud. This looks like a group of hipster indie game journalists trying to decide whether or not Zoe Quinn’s doxing is of public interest or a personal matter between Zoe and her ex (fair question). They are also deciding if they should offer a letter of support because they feel sorry for her. Awww. Isn’t that sweet?
As far as ‘corruption’ goes, this is very, very low on the totem pole of ethical concerns journalists face.
Even when you consider the controversial aspect of Zoe Quinn — that she allegedly leveraged personal and sexual relationships to gain positive exposure for her mediocre game, Depression Quest — you realize that’s not exactly news either. Zoe Quinn is not Monica Lewinsky, and Kotaku is hardly the White house. Nepotism and sexual relationships happen all the time within companies and within industries, including gasp! journalism.
Anna Prousser is the marketing director of EG, at least partially due her relationship with inControl. Genna Bain ran Axiom while being married to Total Biscuit. Was that nepotism, or Anna and Genna being part of the family business?
Do you want a more extreme example? I personally knew I guy I went to school that sucked the dick of a Vice columnist so he could secure an interview with him. Seriously. He really wanted to break into the New York art scene. What you call nepotism and corruption some people consider networking. (If you think Zoe’s actions are unseemly, do not go near art or fashion. It’s a pervert’s paradise) It’s not always honourable or fair but it happens, and it’s not news to most people — unless it involves a celebrity, like Terry Richardson, Bill Cosby etc.
Which leads me to a Starcraft example: remember when the EG house formed, and how there were rumours of infighting? How IdrA (one of their star players) had a horrible relationship with DeMuslim, wouldn’t practice with his teammates, hated Starcraft 2 as a game, etc?
Now, we know of these things, but not because of any real reporting or commentary from any potential news sources, such as State of the Game, Live on 3, Team Liquid, MLG, NASL etc. We only heard bits and pieces from guys like Lzgamer or DeMuslim on their streams, or insinuated (and often back-tracked) by IdrA himself.
Why do you think that is? IdrA, one of the highest-salaried and popular players in the SC2, having serious issues within the EG house is pretty juicy. It’s perfect click-bait. The community would eat it up. And all the above-mentioned organizations fraternize, share talent, practice and work together. They would have had 'inside-information.'
The reason it was never reported on is simple — everyone in the SC2 pro-gaming and broadcasting community know each other. They're friends. Can you imagine if Slasher wrote an exposé on whatever happened in the house? He would get his ass punted out of the scene. Collectively they must have decided, either informally, through 'groupthink' or just collective reasoning, that that kind of gossip would hurt the SC2 community more than it would help it.
So like GameJournosPros, the SC2 progamer and broadcast community had 'an agenda' — which was not kicking a guy while he was down.
Ask yourself: is this collusion, conspiracy or corruption? Or is it just community?
CORPORATE CORRUPTION
Now, the ambiguity and lack of transparency surrounding ‘paid’ and actual content is a very real issue, and most common in trade magazines. If you pick up any fashion magazine, almost every photoshoot and piece of content is secretly sponsored or paid for by a design house. It’s not explicitly labeled at all. For decades, Wizard Magazine was the ONLY source of news for mainstream comics, and it was basically a glorified extension of the major studios to pander to fanboys.
Mainstream media is going through some serious growing pains and upheaval right now. Aggregators like Buzzfeed and Huffington Post are absolutely murdering traditional news outlets by cannibalizing their content and stealing their traffic (and potential ad revenue). More and more people expect content for free, and it’s getting harder and harder for publishers to cover the cost.
So they’re resorting to new monetization models — which includes content covertly paid for by marketing and PR firms. This has been happening for a long time, and is only going to get worse. What used to be advertorials are now being taken over by content written by an in-house team and paid for by a corporation.
The reason why mainstream media isn’t reporting on the unhealthy relationship between developers and game journalism, is twofold:
A) it’s an issue all news organizations are facing right now and B) they can’t do so without be revealed as deeply, deeply hypocritical.
ANITA, BRIANNA & ZOE
So why focus so much attention to Anita, Brianna and Zoe, figures that GameGaters consider ’tertiary’ to the actual issue of journalistic integrity? Well, it’s because of what they represent. No, not feminism. But their harassment has serious implications for all journalists, columnists and media critics.
While feminism (and the persecution of feminists) is a juicy topic, the harassment of these women begs the underlying question: if threats and privacy-attacks like those levelled at Anita or Brianna become 'the new normal', how will that effect ANY journalist that may have an opinion or view that might offend people? We’ve seen celebrities and politicians being harassed and targeted already — but imagine a world where journalists and critics as harassed, threatened and doxxed, simply for having an alternative perspective or opinion.
Is the future of media journalists and critics posting anonymously, for fear of retaliation? Is all new media just going to end up pandering to the masses or corporate interests?
It’s actually a terrifying concept for a mainstream journalist (and everyone) — which is why they think it’s a great news story. Personally, they're invested in fighting against the harassment they've endured, because it's an even greater potential threat to journalism and it's integrity than the other two issues.
Thanks for the response. It definitely answered my question. Although I'd argue that they should have dropped the feminist/woman angle and come right out and said we as journalists are concerned for our profession. It's a fair concern given the damage an unruly internet mob can potentially do. But by being deceptive in their approach to it, well frankly I think it will just make what they are fearing come true.
It's unfortunate, because It think GamerGate has some reasonable concerns but have done a horrible job communicating a clear message. When you read kotakuinaction, it it very obviously they are willing to wage a campaign on any issue in order to sabotage or combat 'enemies' like Gawker. It may be effective as disruption but really hurts their credibility as a serious or genuine protest or movement.
However, the policy changes that they won at The Escapist, kotaku and other sources in regards to transparency IS A WIN, and sadly, a higher journalistic standard than most industries, including network news.
On October 19 2014 17:02 ninazerg wrote: I have only one question:
Did he literally suck his dick?
Yes. Like, some of his art includes photos of him, sucking this guy's dick.
And the fucked up thing is … it worked. The artist became friends with the VICE staff. That was his in. Got into New York galleries. Was featured in the Whitney Biennial (a huge honour in the art world) and recently, designed Lady Gaga's piano for her tour.
I wish I was making this shit up, but it's 100% true.
Considering that a good bit of 'journalism' involves generating two-minute hates against private individuals whose actions offend them, I can't say I'm feeling too sympathetic
I have two observations about modern journalism (perhaps these things have always been the case, and the general public simply realizes it more now). First, they are deeply ignorant about the subjects they write on (outfits in 'explanatory journalism' like Vox really demonstrate this). Second, they seem to reflexively deny the possibility that their 'professional communities' serve to perpetuate confirmation bias. Of course other fields aren't immune to it, but generally they tend to recognize that confirmation bias can be a huge problem and there are often even institutional protections (say, adversarial peer-review when its functioning properly) against it.
In other words, when shortly annotated lists and cat pictures are seen as more valuable than 'actual journalism,' maybe that speaks more to the quality of journalism than the declining tastes of the public.
On October 19 2014 17:44 419 wrote: Considering that a good bit of 'journalism' involves generating two-minute hates against private individuals whose actions offend them, I can't say I'm feeling too sympathetic
I have two observations about modern journalism (perhaps these things have always been the case, and the general public simply realizes it more now). First, they are deeply ignorant about the subjects they write on (outfits in 'explanatory journalism' like Vox really demonstrate this). Second, they seem to reflexively deny the possibility that their 'professional communities' serve to perpetuate confirmation bias. Of course other fields aren't immune to it, but generally they tend to recognize that confirmation bias can be a huge problem and there are often even institutional protections (say, adversarial peer-review when its functioning properly) against it.
In other words, when shortly annotated lists and cat pictures are seen as more valuable than 'actual journalism,' maybe that speaks more to the quality of journalism than the declining tastes of the public.
I can see where you going with that, but I disagree.
A news outlet can provide the best coverage possible — but get all their traffic stolen by a link from a more popular aggregator. In fact that's exactly what happened to the New York Times when Nelson Mandela died.
[The NYTimes Report] also includes an unusually frank exchange with a competitor, an executive at Huffington Post who is described as contrasting that site’s facility with search engine optimization with the Times’ failures in that area.
“An executive there described watching the aggregation outperform our original content after Nelson Mandela’s death,” the report says. “‘You guys got crushed,’ he said. ‘I was queasy watching the numbers. I’m not proud of this. But this is your competition. You should defend the digital pickpockets from stealing your stuff with better headlines, better social.’”
It's not like the idea of lists and bite-size content hasn't already existed in some form, pre-internet. It's the equivalent of OK! or People magazine, or trash you would find at the supermarket: Hot or Not Lists, celebrity gossip, the comics section of newspapers, little games and crosswords.
It's just that Buzzfeed has completely exposed the demand for this kind of content, and supercharged it with analytics and deep understanding of how virality works. We live in the age of consumption and arousal addiction. There's been studies on it — we've become addicted to novelty. It's the same impulse in our brain that can make some addicted to porn or the internet or playing a slot machine for hours and hours. There's something new with every click.
Here's a quote from the VP of Buzzfeed, addressing exactly your concern.
BuzzFeed Motion Pictures vp Jonathan Perelman said Dear Kitten's success wasn't just because the Web is crazy for cats. Rather, the results stem from combining data from previous campaigns to create custom content for specific marketers. Here's exactly what he means by that:
BuzzFeed Videos Features at Least One of These Three Pillars: Emotion, Identity and Information
Digital video isn't like traditional storytelling with a narrative arc, so there's no need to think of creating content that way, according to Perelman. Not all pieces need a great story—for example, Dear Kitten is basically a list. "Storytelling is a component, but it's not the exclusive component," he said.
Traditional journalism is going to have to adapt and shift from the position of emotionless, 'false' objectivity. People either want news to be quick-and-dirty (to the point of being dumbed down) or deeply engaging extension of their own values (like editorial or memoir).
It's why a publisher like VICE is kicking ass. They go beyond just reporting and essentially are making documentaries, where reporters are participants in the 'issues' they're capturing. And the original magazine essentially brought zine-style, highly personal writing to the masses, long before blogging existed.
Traditional journalism is going to have to adapt and shift from the position of emotionless, 'false' objectivity. People either want news to be quick-and-dirty (to the point of being dumbed down) or deeply engaging extension of their own values (like editorial or memoir).
To be blunt, I don't think you give the public nearly enough credit. I suspect when people read tabloids, they know exactly what to expect. However, when reading more serious journalism, perhaps they would prefer that said writers were not completely ignorant about the very topic the pieces are on.
It's not a matter of "too long, didn't read," it's the galling arrogance of a writer who believes there's a bridge between the Gaza Strip and the West Bank thinking that he has any business telling you "all you need to know about Israel-Palestine, etc." All because he went to journalism school.
If I wanted to absorb some low-information news content, I could listen to the Daily Show or read Newsweek, but at least one has the chance of being amusing. And thus the former flourishes while the latter is sold for a dollar
Traditional journalism is going to have to adapt and shift from the position of emotionless, 'false' objectivity. People either want news to be quick-and-dirty (to the point of being dumbed down) or deeply engaging extension of their own values (like editorial or memoir).
To be blunt, I don't think you give the public nearly enough credit. I suspect when people read tabloids, they know exactly what to expect. However, when reading more serious journalism, perhaps they would prefer that said writers were not completely ignorant about the very topic the pieces are on.
It's not a matter of "too long, didn't read," it's the galling arrogance of a writer who believing there's a bridge between the Gaza Strip and the West Bank thinking that he has any business telling you "all you need to know about Israel-Palestine, etc." All because he went to journalism school.
If I wanted to absorb some low-information news content, I could listen to the Daily Show or read Newsweek, but at least one has the chance of being amusing. And thus the former flourishes while the latter is sold for a dollar
I understand what you're getting at now.
All I'm trying to say is that it's more than just an issue of providing quality content, in an age where people regularly steal other people's content.
Edited the post above to include a quote from an executive from the Huffington Post, openingly admitting to linking/stealing content from the NYTimes, and destroying them in terms of traffic with their news.
On October 19 2014 15:49 Defacer wrote: The reason it was never reported on is simple — everyone in the SC2 pro-gaming and broadcasting community know each other. They're friends. Can you imagine if Slasher wrote an exposé on whatever happened in the house? He would get his ass punted out of the scene. Collectively they must have decided, either informally, through 'groupthink' or just collective reasoning, that that kind of gossip would hurt the SC2 community more than it would help it.
So like GameJournosPros, the SC2 progamer and broadcast community had 'an agenda' — which was not kicking a guy while he was down.
Ask yourself: is this collusion, conspiracy or corruption? Or is it just community?
the line gets very blurry and the slope gets very slippery.
A major percentage of the Toronto Blue Jays baseball roster cheats on their wives. In the great and wonderful tradition of "sports journalism" this lack of personal integrity never gets reported.
A Toronto Blue Jays GM in his late 40s is banging an 18 year old female while "happily married". every reporter covering the Blue Jays knows it. no one reports it.
Now, suppose we're all hush-hush and in total agreement no one should ever ever say anything about that. You've presented this wonderful persuasive argument how "its all just community".
Now what happens when she starts applying subtle pressure about wanting a secret job with the team that pays very well. However, even a lawyer could not tell you whether or not it constitutes blackmail? Does someone step forward and report that?
What happens when he knocks her unconscious with a right haymaker in a hotel with the entire event recorded by security cameras? Does this get reported?
We've seen 2 very different responses to identical events. One goes unreported and one is every where on ESPN.com Because of this people are going to have really tough time taking "sports journalism" seriously.
News Media sell narratives. And they are utterly insular. The reason the mainstream articles are as they are is for 2 very simple reasons: 1) confirms bias; they can sell "bigoted, basement dwellers harass poor woman". 2) They do their "research" by calling the journalists involved. Thus, the only true "journalism" they do is interviewing the people with the most interest in selling their own story.
This happens *all the time*. Journalism is a misnomer. It rarely, truly happens. When it does, it generally gets a reporter fired. That's simply the nature of it all.
On October 19 2014 15:49 Defacer wrote: The reason it was never reported on is simple — everyone in the SC2 pro-gaming and broadcasting community know each other. They're friends. Can you imagine if Slasher wrote an exposé on whatever happened in the house? He would get his ass punted out of the scene. Collectively they must have decided, either informally, through 'groupthink' or just collective reasoning, that that kind of gossip would hurt the SC2 community more than it would help it.
So like GameJournosPros, the SC2 progamer and broadcast community had 'an agenda' — which was not kicking a guy while he was down.
Ask yourself: is this collusion, conspiracy or corruption? Or is it just community?
the line gets very blurry and the slope gets very slippery.
A major percentage of the Toronto Blue Jays baseball roster cheats on their wives. In the great and wonderful tradition of "sports journalism" this lack of personal integrity never gets reported.
A Toronto Blue Jays GM in his late 40s is banging an 18 year old female while "happily married". every reporter covering the Blue Jays knows it. no one reports it.
Now, suppose we're all hush-hush and in total agreement no one should ever ever say anything about that. You've presented this wonderful persuasive argument how "its all just community".
Now what happens when she starts applying subtle pressure about wanting a secret job with the team that pays very well. However, even a lawyer could not tell you whether or not it constitutes blackmail? Does someone step forward and report that?
What happens when he knocks her unconscious with a right haymaker in a hotel with the entire event recorded by security cameras? Does this get reported?
We've seen 2 very different responses to identical events. One goes unreported and one is every where on ESPN.com Because of this people are going to have really tough time taking "sports journalism" seriously.
this also applies to "game journalism".
i can't take either "profession" very seriously.
I don't disagree with you and I think you have an excellent point. Part of the purpose of this post was to illustrate how there is a lot of grey area for journalists to navigate, and the slope is very, very slippery. But I shouldn't frame my position as if I'm defending the decisions that all these journalists make in various communities make, because I can't and I don't.
Ultimately, I wanted to point out that in the context of wider media, how GameJournosPros handled the Zoe Quinn situation is mild compared to the terrible, career-ending information most journalists sit on, in sports and entertainment.
I don't think protecting a player's sexual activity is remotely close to the worst thing a journalist can do. It's not a journalists or the public's job to insure that someone is faithful to their spouse, or not being slutty (unless you cover Hollywood celebrities or something). Infidelity isn't a crime. Something truly bad has to happen before it become news, and it's not a journalists role to be 'proactive' and attempt to prevent that bad from happening.
But let's walk away from sex scandal because the line between what's personal, what's public (and when?) is way too subjective. Let's try to use examples of journalists sitting on information to mislead entire audiences.
Starcraft example: Remember when WCS was first announced? Can you imagine the amount of people behind-the-scenes that must of known — like, with 90% certainty — that MLG didn't want to broadcast it, it would force most of the foreign scene into retirement, and it would be the final nail in the coffin for NASL? Yes, there was a lot of complaints about WCS on the board, from fans and some players. But all the tournaments, media partners and journalists we usually rely on for news pretty much held their tongues for a long time.
Real-life example: I really don't want to get into Trayvon Martin. But the way the media actively omitted or misrepresented information during the Zimmerman trial was flabbergasting. You can understand sensationalism and reporting errors happening at the time of the incident, but during the trial? When it was clear the state department didn't have a case? The media was reporting on like it the way Day9 hypes a really bad SC2 match.
Fuck, you can dig up that thread somewhere but that's where you can see me, daPhreak, farva and xDaunt collectively losing our shit.
A scathing editorial from the Business Insider, highlighting the apparent cognitive dissonance in the gaming community, and the insignificance of the level of corruption in Gaming Journalism.
Um, if you are a diehard GG'er, you won't enjoy reading this. But it's represents mainstream journalism's perception of GG advocates, right from the horse's mouth.
Gamers who have rallied around the hashtag #GamerGate insist that the death threats are trivial. It's only Twitter, they say. Grow up and ignore it the way the rest of us do. More importantly, they add, the death threats are not the TRUE issue at the heart of GamerGate. Rather, it's the video game industry's cozy relationship with video game journalists and the conflict of interests they indulge in. Sometimes, the writers sleep with the game coders, apparently. "Video game journalism [is] in need of urgent reform," writer Milo Yiannopoulos insists.
There is no doubt that video game web sites publish some pretty feeble stories posing as "news." But that's the case in any business trade news niche.
But look at the priorities here. On the one hand, a handful of women have said, "Some of these games are frankly not great, guys!" and been threatened with death for having that opinion. And on the other hand, a huge chunk of the gaming community is now fiercely arguing that the death threats aren't important. Rather, the technicalities of video game reviewing are the priority.
It's completely insane. It's insane that you even have to say out loud that sending death threats to people who disagree with your opinion of video games is wrong.
Gamers who have rallied around the hashtag #GamerGate insist that the death threats are trivial. It's only Twitter, they say. Grow up and ignore it the way the rest of us do.
some top-tier trash journalism right here
I come from a field which would expect some concrete examples if I want to call out generic groups of people for being wrong. That would require actual research, though, as opposed to only reading articles which you happen to agree with.
Gamers who have rallied around the hashtag #GamerGate insist that the death threats are trivial. It's only Twitter, they say. Grow up and ignore it the way the rest of us do.
some top-tier trash journalism right here
I come from a field which would expect some concrete examples if I want to call out generic groups of people for being wrong. That would require actual research, though, as opposed to only reading articles which you happen to agree with.
All media and movements are biased. And selective. Including GamerGate. You can only mitigate against it with diversity.
I mean, I would never trust any organization were everyone agreed on everything.
I used to write in a now defunct gaming magazine. And I'd like to add that the conflict of interest pressures are more accute in a gaming publication. First there simply isn't much money to go around in the industry. And when your magazine or website depends on big developers for funding (becayse subscriptions alone are never sufficient) you can't be too critical. Second, the industry is tiny. Annoy the wrong people and that's it. Third, it's a dream job for many nerds (play games all day!) and this makes you super replaceable.
Very few people are going to stick out their necks.
These are valid issues but it's sad that it has now been associated with all the baggage of the hashing gamergate
On October 20 2014 16:44 levelping wrote: I used to write in a now defunct gaming magazine. And I'd like to add that the conflict of interest pressures are more accute in a gaming publication. First there simply isn't much money to go around in the industry. And when your magazine or website depends on big developers for funding (becayse subscriptions alone are never sufficient) you can't be too critical. Second, the industry is tiny. Annoy the wrong people and that's it. Third, it's a dream job for many nerds (play games all day!) and this makes you super replaceable.
Very few people are going to stick out their necks.
These are valid issues but it's sad that it has now been associated with all the baggage of the hashing gamergate
Agreed. Unless people return to a subscription model, and start paying for content, all content online is going to continue to rely more and more on advertising and content paid-for/endorsed by corporations.
The problem with GamerGate get is that is simply isn't about journalistic integrity, based on the campaigns they're raging and their rhetoric. I haven't heard an intelligent argument yet about how games journalism is any more corrupt than any other trade, or why that matters more than say, the collusion of media empires of News Corp or Disney/ABC. If anyone can point me to that type of discussion, I would be glad to read it.
GamerGate has become a small subset of the gamer community that feel like they are being persecuted by entities they are accusing of oppressing to their values — values they haven't even defined, and in ways that are never convincingly articulated. And is seems like Gaters will do or say anything to attack those oppressors — even if it means undermining their own integrity.
They claim it's about fair and balanced journalism, but they fail to realize that all journalism is curated, and will never be 100% objective. And they seem obsessed with discussing their own persecution — claiming they are being labeled unfairly as misogynists, censored, or bullied by the mainstream — more then are interested in issues related to journalistic ethics in the 21st Century.
It's a deeply self-referential movement that openly accepts any theory or heresay, regardless of source or veracity, that supports their self-identity as victims. Meanwhile it ignores any actual hard facts or reasoning that challenges or diminishes their identity as victims, claiming it's either part of a conspiracy or simply not relevant.
On October 20 2014 16:44 levelping wrote: I used to write in a now defunct gaming magazine. And I'd like to add that the conflict of interest pressures are more accute in a gaming publication. First there simply isn't much money to go around in the industry. And when your magazine or website depends on big developers for funding (becayse subscriptions alone are never sufficient) you can't be too critical. Second, the industry is tiny. Annoy the wrong people and that's it. Third, it's a dream job for many nerds (play games all day!) and this makes you super replaceable.
Very few people are going to stick out their necks.
you paint a dim pessimistic view of the industry. and its 100% accurate.
things are in a bad state, however, there is hope.
One small sign of hope: AngryJoe's review of the 500 million dollar game Destiny received 5 times as many views on youtube as IGN's review.
I was impressed that IGN managed to give the game a review score under 80. IGN made a brilliant strategic/political decision by stating: "we didn't get an advanced review copy of the game so we need to take our time to fully explore the game". They waited until the game was out 10 days and gave it a score that was 5% higher than the Metacritic average. Really impressive corporate politicking on the part of IGN.com.
I bet AngryJoe and several other 100% independent game reviewers are well paid.
EPT
