Peterb has sent in an interesting story. Apparently Gamespy posted a heavily edited review of Donkey Konga 2, with favorable copy (and a final score) that was not part of the reviewer’s original piece. Uh-oh.
One take is that this is unethical, and an example of everything that’s wrong with gaming journalism and its apologists. Another take is that this is more of the same and an example of how rushed we all are to get content — whether it’s good, or not.
The idea that Gamespy would do such a thing makes me wince. Editing a review is more than just touching grammar; but to change the entire intent of the piece? That’s unethical. If Gamespy wants to remove the authors’ names from their reviews, that’s one thing. But if they offer writers credits, then they have to represent their brand, and their talent. After all, they hired the scribes. Don’t they trust them?
Gamegirl’s opinion that this incident is a sign of how rushed we are is valid, but it also makes me wince. She argues that the editors probably didn’t have time to contact the writer, in the rush to publish. Of course, we never make time for things that aren’t important to us.
Gamespy has taken the review down, so they know they did something wrong. But, in the end, there isn’t a resolution to this kind of problem since it’s built into the culture. Gamegirl is also right — we want our news, we want it now, and we want it good. In that order. Sometimes the media will skip that last criterion to get you #2.
I see posts by Joystiq writers that make me uncomfortable, but if that’s their opinion (and they back it up in the piece or in the comments section) then so be it. This is why I love blogging. The piece only begins when it’s posted. From that point on, it keeps on living for as long as you want it to.
http://www.joystiq.com/entry/1234000077043320/
Donkey Konga 2 review marched to the beat of the editor's drummer
Linear Mode
