UNBIASED AND UNBALANCED

Another great article by Daniel Wilks in PCPP #254, bringing to light a global misunderstanding of media roles, leading to communal divisiveness, and concocted outrage, not just in the gaming industry. It might help if primary schools taught the meaning of each media role and the critical differences between them, at the same time as children learn to read and understand language. Mass Media is the primary interface through which we all build our worldview, and are variously entertained and/or informed in the process. Unfortunately a disproportionate number of us take editorial or opinion (‘entertainment’) as ‘factual information’. Mr Wilks uses varying terms of gaming writer roles throughout his excellent piece, but it is vital that readers distinguish between them to appreciate why there is division and outrage in the gaming community and the world generally. Of the many roles, two extreme examples occupy ends of a spectrum of ‘truths’ - the journalistic piece, and the editorial piece. Both have a valid role, but both are confused and conflated to the detriment of the entire industry, which is rapidly diminishing into an abyss of clickbait advertorial trash with as little trust from the community at large, as poll-driven political parties.

The journalistic piece, in its purest form is meant to bring ‘the truth of matters’ to light, (moreso investigative journalism), producing a journal of evidence unfettered by prejudice or opinion. The dispassionate nature of pure journalism can be a weighty drawback to any article, requiring a significant attention span from anyone not invested in the subject matter. This makes it difficult to ‘sell’ unless the explosive nature of the uncovered truths affect enough of a widespread audience of stakeholders to outweigh its plain tone.

While there is no place for ‘bias’ in this role, including the obvious prerequisite to ‘play the ball not the man’, it can sometimes be impossible to provide a balanced journal where facts on one side or the other remain closed from investigation (security, or ‘Non-Disclosure Agreements’). As such, journalists reporting such facts as they CAN discover, are attacked by opposing vested interests, with spurious claims of bias. Checking sources & balance through ‘right of reply’ is essential to journalistic integrity, but dissenting ‘reply’ often vastly outweighs the point of the initial piece, in a wave of propaganda designed to occlude certain truths.

In any commercially driven sphere with a given leaning towards a certain worldview, ANY opposing view - even with the purest journalistic merits, will be accused of ‘bias’.

That goes for the Gaming industry where publishers & AAA developer stakeholders are counting every dollar on their margins against negative reviews, just as much as the Mining Industry where the interests of farmers and landowners collide against corporate profiteering and claims of ‘Mining=Jobs & Growth’ despite widespread automation wiping out said jobs to maximise profit.

At the other end of the spectrum we have the Editorial, or Op-Ed, literally an Opinion piece with personal views and insights on said events. The Op-Ed brings passions and interests of writers to the fore, and it is through such crucial drivers that readers can be engaged even if they were not initially invested in the subject matter. These pieces are biased by nature, and therein lies the rub - where does ‘game reviewer’ lie on the spectrum?

It is legitimate for gaming writers to occupy either end of the spectrum, where their pieces are clearly designated as Op-Ed or scored review, but it is difficult to detect or eliminate possibility of bias unless readers are aware, or are made aware by declarations made by the writer, of their interests, which is another prerequisite for journalistic pieces.

As Daniel points out, the key for a gaming writer lies somewhere between, where their passions bring to light certain truths of a game which would otherwise lie undiscovered, and in so doing, both enlighten AND entertain the reader, both vital for engagement and garnering continued readership. I think one of the best examples PCPP does of balancing gaming journalism against editorialism inside a game review, is with those big spreads done by multiple reviewers, (e.g. Wilks/Hollingworth). Each writer brings differing (sometimes opposing) views to bear, at once a delight to read, and at least twice as informative as a solo review. It doesn’t hurt to have a bit of division of opinion - truly, it was masterful of Channel 9 Sports to put Tony Greig & Bill Lawry together in the commentary box all those decades ago. Canary yellow? That’s Ratings gold, my friend, and don’t you f.. forget it!

Thanks mate – Daniel’s head has swollen even bigger. I hope you’re proud of yourself.