surf dtoid with 
Rising (10+)
People you follow
send message
follow
followers
"If Jim Sterling gives Duke Nukem Forever a 2/10, there must be something in this game that potentially could offend somebody. After reading about the rape joke, who am I to disagree that somebody might find this to be terrible. If the man puts that much effort in to making the review readable, there has to be content behind the words. To not have a review that scores this game properly on those grounds is criminal."
So you're saying he gave the game a bad score because it could offend someone? I think you may misunderstand Jim's job as a reviewer. It isn't to be the morality police and warn the helpless churchgoers of the world of offensive content. That's what the ESRB rating is for.
So you're saying he gave the game a bad score because it could offend someone? I think you may misunderstand Jim's job as a reviewer. It isn't to be the morality police and warn the helpless churchgoers of the world of offensive content. That's what the ESRB rating is for.
No actually I'm saying that he found something offensive and wrote and scored the game accordingly on that and other issues. He used his opinion as a person to represent an opinion that somebody else might have. He was being critical as a critic and relaying that point to an audience.
I'm trying to relay that on that single instance alone, I could make an argument that this game was 2/10 based on the review. That could suck all the fun out of the game for me. I am now informed. It is his job to inform me as a reader as to why it could be a 2/10. That one thing just seemed easier to me to write a paragraph than discussing graphics, story, characterization and everything else.
I'm trying to relay that on that single instance alone, I could make an argument that this game was 2/10 based on the review. That could suck all the fun out of the game for me. I am now informed. It is his job to inform me as a reader as to why it could be a 2/10. That one thing just seemed easier to me to write a paragraph than discussing graphics, story, characterization and everything else.
Fapped. Particularly for the way you addressed peoples reaction to criticism. It isn't just in gaming either. If people don't like something, more and more I am seeing people trying to shut out someones opinion. Whether it be by removing advertising/threatening them/suing them or in this case asking them to remove their opinion from something oh so nicely.
If you don't like someones opinion, argue, ignore or preferably piss off.
If you don't like someones opinion, argue, ignore or preferably piss off.
Brilliantly written ! I feel with you , I just like you don't always agree with Jim's methods but I respect him as a fellow gamer and a writer or journalist :P And as you say , as long as you can write intelligently and back up your opinions , go on , write to your hearts content , by all means do!
BUT Oh god , I feel with you , it's redundant to be critizised over and over when you tell people that you hang out and enjoy reading destructoid , just because something they heard or seen, I mean c'mon people BE CONSTRUCTIVE, tell them why you think people are doing wrong and have a neat discussion about how you guys can change it into something better , it's much more rewarding , I promise ! And who know's maybe you'll end up learning something about yourself or others :P Also ... Videogames!
BUT Oh god , I feel with you , it's redundant to be critizised over and over when you tell people that you hang out and enjoy reading destructoid , just because something they heard or seen, I mean c'mon people BE CONSTRUCTIVE, tell them why you think people are doing wrong and have a neat discussion about how you guys can change it into something better , it's much more rewarding , I promise ! And who know's maybe you'll end up learning something about yourself or others :P Also ... Videogames!
Constructive criticism is always the best way to go but its harder and takes longer so people always skip that and go straight to the hate. Still think Jim does more good than harm overall but his usual approach does bring out the worst in certain people. We'll just do our best not to despair for every time someone's argument to his review/article can be reduced to BIAS!
This is the article you were referring to, no? http://sexyvideogameland.blogspot.com/2011/06/tale-of-two-jims.html
I don't like the way Jim writes, but like you, I think he should have a voice and not be censored from official review sites because of his brashness. However, I do have to agree with the first part of what Leigh talks about. Jim obviously uses certain means to keep his hits going, and that's all good and fine for those who enjoy that - it's not really helping other journalists but it's not hurting either. I definitely don't think he needs to resign from writing reviews, but it would also be nice for him to tone things down when he does release official reviews. Leigh's right - there is a very fine balance to play as a games journalist and I don't believe Jim is respecting that as much as others. But then again, that's what makes him unique.
I don't like the way Jim writes, but like you, I think he should have a voice and not be censored from official review sites because of his brashness. However, I do have to agree with the first part of what Leigh talks about. Jim obviously uses certain means to keep his hits going, and that's all good and fine for those who enjoy that - it's not really helping other journalists but it's not hurting either. I definitely don't think he needs to resign from writing reviews, but it would also be nice for him to tone things down when he does release official reviews. Leigh's right - there is a very fine balance to play as a games journalist and I don't believe Jim is respecting that as much as others. But then again, that's what makes him unique.
@Caiters
That's the one. It's linked to in the article.
As for the comment. I disagree. There is a responsibility for Journalists to present news and information in a concise enough manner as to be understood by their audience. I'll argue that Jim throws opinion in to his stories, but at the end of the day however he is still presenting news. When his argument begins to blur in to commentary, it's then disregarded as an opinion piece.
However, that's not what I'm talking about. Reviews are not news but criticism. Jim does somewhat noticeably tone down his reviews from his normal Ekans loving personality. Mostly because he has to back them up with the words. He still uses controversial dialogue I'll admit, but it isn't the same as his opinion pieces.
There is only one line for games journalism. Quality of message. If Jim's message is blurry then he should be called on it. If his review points are wrong, he should be called on it. However, if his reviews are just too over the top, that's a non-issue.
At no point should anybody be told they need to change their style of writing if the message is still told appropriately. As far as I've seen, his reviews for the most part have been on message.
That's the one. It's linked to in the article.
As for the comment. I disagree. There is a responsibility for Journalists to present news and information in a concise enough manner as to be understood by their audience. I'll argue that Jim throws opinion in to his stories, but at the end of the day however he is still presenting news. When his argument begins to blur in to commentary, it's then disregarded as an opinion piece.
However, that's not what I'm talking about. Reviews are not news but criticism. Jim does somewhat noticeably tone down his reviews from his normal Ekans loving personality. Mostly because he has to back them up with the words. He still uses controversial dialogue I'll admit, but it isn't the same as his opinion pieces.
There is only one line for games journalism. Quality of message. If Jim's message is blurry then he should be called on it. If his review points are wrong, he should be called on it. However, if his reviews are just too over the top, that's a non-issue.
At no point should anybody be told they need to change their style of writing if the message is still told appropriately. As far as I've seen, his reviews for the most part have been on message.
Jim isn't a fucking journalist. He is a blogger. He tells you the news along with his feelings on them. If you dislike his feelings, oh fucking well. Get over it.
As for his reviews, what does it matter whether or not he is a a "journalist" or a "blogger"? He is giving his opinion on a game and being serious about it. You certainly don't have to listen to him.
What the fuck is Leigh Alexander talking about in that article? Looks like she's trolling for hits herself there!
As for his reviews, what does it matter whether or not he is a a "journalist" or a "blogger"? He is giving his opinion on a game and being serious about it. You certainly don't have to listen to him.
What the fuck is Leigh Alexander talking about in that article? Looks like she's trolling for hits herself there!
Jim IS a journalist. When he decides to tell other people news it made him a journalist. He have the right to have an opinion, but he have the obligation to be truthful with the handling of news and be impartial on how he disclose them. The problem is he mix his opinions so much in the news that we do not now what is fact and what is his opinions.
As for his reviews, I think he is a good reviewer and do a good job.
As for his reviews, I think he is a good reviewer and do a good job.
@ ManWithNoName: No, he's sharing the news. That's all. Sharing and telling. I can do the same in my own C-blog. No different.
an interesting read... and what's more interesting is the backstabbing and criticism aimed at others in similar positions within the realm of "videogame journalism". Myself, I don't really care about reviews or even editorials... it's either an interesting read or it's not. Frankly with all the bloggers, forums and other sources of game information out there (including metacritic) it's not that difficult to find game information out there and make an informed purchasing decision, so what I read I tend to read for information, opinion and mostly entertainment.
Entertainment can come with the witty, caustic wordplay often found in Jim's writing, or in the more journalistic style usually shown by Leigh's work. Neither really has the right to criticize the other and frankly she should NEVER have asked that Jim not label his reviews as reviews. That is the right of the gamer audience, not a peer. If Jim is found to not be entertaining, then people will simply not read his reviews nor watch his videos - same applies to Leigh. The reality is that they either get hits or they don't.
The reality is that true "journalism" is rarely seen anymore. Most everything is now "edutainment". The newscasts we see on TV are filled with opinion, youtube videos, unsubstantiated stories, rumours and bias. Jim is simply more the Fox News of games journalism.
Entertainment can come with the witty, caustic wordplay often found in Jim's writing, or in the more journalistic style usually shown by Leigh's work. Neither really has the right to criticize the other and frankly she should NEVER have asked that Jim not label his reviews as reviews. That is the right of the gamer audience, not a peer. If Jim is found to not be entertaining, then people will simply not read his reviews nor watch his videos - same applies to Leigh. The reality is that they either get hits or they don't.
The reality is that true "journalism" is rarely seen anymore. Most everything is now "edutainment". The newscasts we see on TV are filled with opinion, youtube videos, unsubstantiated stories, rumours and bias. Jim is simply more the Fox News of games journalism.
I like Jim's reviews. He can be harsh but I can appreciate his tone and even when I disagree with him, I can appreciate what he is trying to say. And anyone who thinks he does all this for hits or to be an industry troll should check out his Jimquisitions. He says some really solid stuff with those.
With any review or a site like metacritic, I can see the numbers and read the criticisms but at the end of the day I am the one who decides whether or not a game is worth my time. Ive played great games and shitty games but they were all my choice. Jim Sterling doesn't hurt the industry and asking him to remove his scores is fucking silly and absurd.
With any review or a site like metacritic, I can see the numbers and read the criticisms but at the end of the day I am the one who decides whether or not a game is worth my time. Ive played great games and shitty games but they were all my choice. Jim Sterling doesn't hurt the industry and asking him to remove his scores is fucking silly and absurd.
well written blog, you said some things i've been thinking myself.
i happen to like jim's reviews and persona, even though i don't always agree with him. as Elsa said, it's entertainment. And like Occams said, it's up to us to decide what game we want, and most half-intelligent gamers don't rely strictly on one source to make that decision (be it metacritic or dtoid).
my problem with Leigh's article was her "holier than thou" stance. she didn't mean to come off like that, but it absolutely had the message, "I know what's best for the entire gaming community. And Jim Sterling needs to change." i haven't read many of her articles, and i probably won't, because now i think she's an idiot.
critiquing another journalist is ok in my opinion, but not with the intent of trying to change what they do, or suggesting they are doing something wrong. it's all opinions, and opinions are like assholes: everyone has one and they are all delicious.
i happen to like jim's reviews and persona, even though i don't always agree with him. as Elsa said, it's entertainment. And like Occams said, it's up to us to decide what game we want, and most half-intelligent gamers don't rely strictly on one source to make that decision (be it metacritic or dtoid).
my problem with Leigh's article was her "holier than thou" stance. she didn't mean to come off like that, but it absolutely had the message, "I know what's best for the entire gaming community. And Jim Sterling needs to change." i haven't read many of her articles, and i probably won't, because now i think she's an idiot.
critiquing another journalist is ok in my opinion, but not with the intent of trying to change what they do, or suggesting they are doing something wrong. it's all opinions, and opinions are like assholes: everyone has one and they are all delicious.
Ah, for some reason I must have missed it.
You say that his writing can be disregarded as an opinion piece - but this isn't always the case. Not everyone is going to take it as so. In fact, for the first couple of weeks I joined Destructoid I misinterpreted his opinions for statements because he melds the two together so seamlessly (quoting things out of context, stating that people whine or shout things, etc). I know better now, but not everyone is going to see this at first.
He throws some pretty brash opinions into most, if not all, of his writing regardless of if it's a review or not. It's not his style of writing - it's how he sensationalizes almost everything. To me, that's not quality writing. It's not BAD writing, in fact Jim is a fantastic writer, but it's so often riddled with his sensationalism that it's hard to see past it.
I think what Leigh is trying to say is that he chooses to distance himself from being a professional, yet he's still held to those standards. I can understand her concern - it's a fine line to walk. But in no way can anyone, even a journalist, tell another journalist or anyone else to remove their reviews for consideration. That's just ridiculous.
I'm sure what he does here helps the site a lot. And I admire him for taking so much flak about his writing, for being brave and putting it out there anyway. That takes balls.
I do agree with Leigh's point though that it isn't really helping the overall game journalist community. But some people don't live to help, they live to succeed. And that's their prerogative I suppose.
You say that his writing can be disregarded as an opinion piece - but this isn't always the case. Not everyone is going to take it as so. In fact, for the first couple of weeks I joined Destructoid I misinterpreted his opinions for statements because he melds the two together so seamlessly (quoting things out of context, stating that people whine or shout things, etc). I know better now, but not everyone is going to see this at first.
He throws some pretty brash opinions into most, if not all, of his writing regardless of if it's a review or not. It's not his style of writing - it's how he sensationalizes almost everything. To me, that's not quality writing. It's not BAD writing, in fact Jim is a fantastic writer, but it's so often riddled with his sensationalism that it's hard to see past it.
I think what Leigh is trying to say is that he chooses to distance himself from being a professional, yet he's still held to those standards. I can understand her concern - it's a fine line to walk. But in no way can anyone, even a journalist, tell another journalist or anyone else to remove their reviews for consideration. That's just ridiculous.
I'm sure what he does here helps the site a lot. And I admire him for taking so much flak about his writing, for being brave and putting it out there anyway. That takes balls.
I do agree with Leigh's point though that it isn't really helping the overall game journalist community. But some people don't live to help, they live to succeed. And that's their prerogative I suppose.
@EDS
I pretty much think that if you label anyone as a "blogger" you defeat the message they are trying to present. If Jim is just a blogger, that means all the news articles that Jonathon Holmes and Nick Chester write aren't journalism. It demeans what they are doing. Nothing separates their reporting from the New York Times.
The only thing Destructoid does different is ask that their journalists provide news, editorials and criticism instead of defining their roles as one thing.
I pretty much think that if you label anyone as a "blogger" you defeat the message they are trying to present. If Jim is just a blogger, that means all the news articles that Jonathon Holmes and Nick Chester write aren't journalism. It demeans what they are doing. Nothing separates their reporting from the New York Times.
The only thing Destructoid does different is ask that their journalists provide news, editorials and criticism instead of defining their roles as one thing.
Though I haven't read any of Sterling's pieces I have heard quite a stirring over them since coming to Dtoid. I want to commend you on the sound construction of your argument, eloquent phrasing and mature handling of counter-points win me over every time ;)
As for the content, writing for the masses is journalism, and we are all responsible for what we present to the public. There will always be some who like to push the edges of propriety and convention, but while they may perturb it is not our place individually to silence them. Only a collective recognition of offense should merit that, and from what I read here, it sounds like the jury's still out on that.
As for the content, writing for the masses is journalism, and we are all responsible for what we present to the public. There will always be some who like to push the edges of propriety and convention, but while they may perturb it is not our place individually to silence them. Only a collective recognition of offense should merit that, and from what I read here, it sounds like the jury's still out on that.
I really don't mean to flame, but did you actually read Leigh Alexander's article? Because saying things like "Don't tell (Jim) he needs to reign in his review just because it's harsh. Explain why his reviews shouldn't be considered professional." suggests otherwise. The entire first part of her article deliberately, explicitly lays out why she thinks Jim's reviews shouldn't be considered professional (and it isn't because they're "harsh"). You're welcome to disagree with the conclusion she comes to (I do), but calling her "lazy" because you chose not to acknowledge her argument doesn't make a point, it misses one.
@Caiters
I must have missed your post last time. Sorry.
That's a solid argument. The fact that Jim Sterling's opinion blurs in to the news perverting it in to something different from the actual story. That is something I could understand and get behind.
Unfortunately, that's not what she's argued here. She's making the point that Jim's harsh reviews are damaging publisher to press relations through Metacritic. That's idiotic to me.
@Zug
Here is how her argument breaks down:
First part discusses that she doesn't actually review anything "per se."
Second part discusses how there is enough tension that publishers and journalists have that makes doing their jobs hard enough. Poor Metacritic scores can damage the hard work that anybody has built with a company and it hurts journalists trying to get real information.
Third part discusses how Jim's review of DNF was harsh and how she respects his right to do so and that she has no ill will to add to him since they are acquaintances.
Fourth part discusses how Jim's controversial persona has a loyal fanbase and that because he reviews something negative, PR companies have to take it square on the chin. That this negative hit can damage the companies perception due to how rabid his fans are.
Final part asks for the Head Review Editor of a company to remove himself from a review aggregate site.
If I missed something through the paraphrasing forgive me, but yes I do believe she has not made one single point as to why Jim Sterling's reviews should be stricken from a review aggregate.
If you think the point that a bad game in Jim Sterling's opinion can hurt sales, access to pr, and at the end of the day, the developers...well hate to tell you, that's not Jim Sterling's fault.
That's the only point she made in this essay. That it makes her job harder when games take a hit and that it may hurt the company that made the bad game. Not that the game being bad could hurt it, that Jim Sterling thinking and writing about the bad game can hurt it.
That's a lazy argument that was stretched over 5 parts. If you think she says something else, state it. I may be misinterpreting her words. However, I've read the piece a few times. This is what I came up with.
She blames Jim Sterling for something that is the developers, the executives and the PR team of a company's fault. She wrote a lot of words, but nearly all of it was garbage.
I must have missed your post last time. Sorry.
That's a solid argument. The fact that Jim Sterling's opinion blurs in to the news perverting it in to something different from the actual story. That is something I could understand and get behind.
Unfortunately, that's not what she's argued here. She's making the point that Jim's harsh reviews are damaging publisher to press relations through Metacritic. That's idiotic to me.
@Zug
Here is how her argument breaks down:
First part discusses that she doesn't actually review anything "per se."
Second part discusses how there is enough tension that publishers and journalists have that makes doing their jobs hard enough. Poor Metacritic scores can damage the hard work that anybody has built with a company and it hurts journalists trying to get real information.
Third part discusses how Jim's review of DNF was harsh and how she respects his right to do so and that she has no ill will to add to him since they are acquaintances.
Fourth part discusses how Jim's controversial persona has a loyal fanbase and that because he reviews something negative, PR companies have to take it square on the chin. That this negative hit can damage the companies perception due to how rabid his fans are.
Final part asks for the Head Review Editor of a company to remove himself from a review aggregate site.
If I missed something through the paraphrasing forgive me, but yes I do believe she has not made one single point as to why Jim Sterling's reviews should be stricken from a review aggregate.
If you think the point that a bad game in Jim Sterling's opinion can hurt sales, access to pr, and at the end of the day, the developers...well hate to tell you, that's not Jim Sterling's fault.
That's the only point she made in this essay. That it makes her job harder when games take a hit and that it may hurt the company that made the bad game. Not that the game being bad could hurt it, that Jim Sterling thinking and writing about the bad game can hurt it.
That's a lazy argument that was stretched over 5 parts. If you think she says something else, state it. I may be misinterpreting her words. However, I've read the piece a few times. This is what I came up with.
She blames Jim Sterling for something that is the developers, the executives and the PR team of a company's fault. She wrote a lot of words, but nearly all of it was garbage.
What you just told Caiter's is a strong argument? Yeah, that is Alexander's argument. You're getting hung up on the "bad reviews cause friction between journalists and PR departments" bit, and yes, that's the inciting incident for why she's asking Jim to step down, but not the argument for why. She isn't making the point that Jim's actions hurt publisher/press relations, because she doesn't need to: the Jim Redner incident just demonstrated that quite clearly. It can happened. It does happened. Simply the nature of the beast.
The point she's making is that even though Jim claims his reviews are written with the utmost rigor and professionalism, his public persona as an inflammatory loudmouth overshadows any straight journalism he does. The notion that he can wear the hats of both Jim the Hit-Nabbing Ringmaster and Jim the Consummate Critic should be viewed with extreme skepticism. Verbatim: "The problem is, Jim disdains the idea of being a professional, but the industry is forced to treat him like one because of the audience he governs."
The issue is whether games journalism can become anything more than a "crippled and often powerless media contingent" when someone who considers himself a pundit and an entertainer is given equal weight as those who consider themselves journalists, and take what they do and the industry very seriously. This isn't a debate about whether game journalism should be taken seriously - Alexander is a dyed-in-the-wool NGJ writer and her answer to that question has been clear and public for a long time. It's a question of whether someone whose primarily known for his hyperbolic rhetoric and preening, narcissistic self-caricature should get to speak for the contingent of people trying to "legitimize" game journalism. Alexander thinks that with a greater amount legitimacy and credibility, game media will enjoy greater influence and broader access to the industry.
That's the argument. Translating that to "Jim hates a game and so my job is harder and so he should quit" is being overly reductive and, yes, lazy. I don't actually agree with Alexander, and a thoughtful counterargument was given above, with Elsa describing competing game blogs/ideologies in terms of a marketplace of ideas. Alexander is arguing on the grounds of her own idealized vision of game criticism, but the reality is the consumer decides what is valuable, and we've found value in Jim Sterling, warts and all. I feel like you're blowing through the nuance in her argument because, as you stated in your first paragraph, you aren't viewing this as a debate, but an attack. And not an attack on Jim Sterling, but an attack on you. That isn't a very healthy way to approach a rational exchange of ideas, and none of this should come as any surprise when the Insert Credits crowd, which Alexander has been a de-facto member of, has been heaping disdain on other journalists and game journalism at large for as long as they've been around. It's nothing you should take personally. Jim has his shtick, they have theirs.
The point she's making is that even though Jim claims his reviews are written with the utmost rigor and professionalism, his public persona as an inflammatory loudmouth overshadows any straight journalism he does. The notion that he can wear the hats of both Jim the Hit-Nabbing Ringmaster and Jim the Consummate Critic should be viewed with extreme skepticism. Verbatim: "The problem is, Jim disdains the idea of being a professional, but the industry is forced to treat him like one because of the audience he governs."
The issue is whether games journalism can become anything more than a "crippled and often powerless media contingent" when someone who considers himself a pundit and an entertainer is given equal weight as those who consider themselves journalists, and take what they do and the industry very seriously. This isn't a debate about whether game journalism should be taken seriously - Alexander is a dyed-in-the-wool NGJ writer and her answer to that question has been clear and public for a long time. It's a question of whether someone whose primarily known for his hyperbolic rhetoric and preening, narcissistic self-caricature should get to speak for the contingent of people trying to "legitimize" game journalism. Alexander thinks that with a greater amount legitimacy and credibility, game media will enjoy greater influence and broader access to the industry.
That's the argument. Translating that to "Jim hates a game and so my job is harder and so he should quit" is being overly reductive and, yes, lazy. I don't actually agree with Alexander, and a thoughtful counterargument was given above, with Elsa describing competing game blogs/ideologies in terms of a marketplace of ideas. Alexander is arguing on the grounds of her own idealized vision of game criticism, but the reality is the consumer decides what is valuable, and we've found value in Jim Sterling, warts and all. I feel like you're blowing through the nuance in her argument because, as you stated in your first paragraph, you aren't viewing this as a debate, but an attack. And not an attack on Jim Sterling, but an attack on you. That isn't a very healthy way to approach a rational exchange of ideas, and none of this should come as any surprise when the Insert Credits crowd, which Alexander has been a de-facto member of, has been heaping disdain on other journalists and game journalism at large for as long as they've been around. It's nothing you should take personally. Jim has his shtick, they have theirs.
So the statement Alexander is trying to make is that Jim Sterling's persona in itself discredits his writing. That if indeed Ben Croshaw decided to set up a separate branch from his Yahtzee personality to review games in a universally understood structure, his opinion shouldn't be counted by an aggregate because he made satirical videos somewhere else on that site?
I'll have to disagree that her argument is purely on those grounds.
Bringing in lines about PR companies doesn't clarify that picture. "It's an uneasy dance that often gets difficult when what game journalists want (to be truthful) clashes with what PR wants (to be positive)."
She spends quite a lot of time discussing the effects and the Redner incident to make her point come across.
Jim Redner going on a tangent about an anonymous review he didn't like leads to this line: "what's the responsibility of a reviewer, especially in the Metacritic era where that stupid number means so much?"
The fact that Jim has a persona yet writes a review that can be considered intelligent and informative should negate any argument she has. You misunderstand. This isn't a direct attack on me, I'm attacking her. I'm attacking the fact that nobody should have their work discarded when it is presented in a clear fashion. I go on and on about how I don't like many of Sterling's works in this article, but I am defending his right to present his opinion.
I am hung up on Leigh attacking Jim's reviews instead of attacking his persona, because she isn't saying he shouldn't present himself as mean Jim Sterling. She's saying he shouldn't present himself as a reviewer because he's mean Jim Sterling some times.
Also as an answer to this odd little reduction of my reduction....you know this one: "'Jim hates a game and so my job is harder and so he should quit' is being overly reductive and, yes, lazy."
"So when Jim doesn't like something, PR has got no choice but to take the hit. That's as much of a vicious standoff as anything PR has ever done to the games press.
Not only does that seem a little unfair, but it does affect the rest of us. We may be able to see Jim as a single figure in a broad landscape of writers, but some of our audience doesn't. The industry doesn't." - Leigh Alexander
I believe this long winded article was a response to potentially being black balled by Jim Redner. That the review he was talking about was the die that was being cast and that in turn it would affect journalists and reviewers when he says something negative to somebody that isn't stupid enough to go on twitter with it.
"Whenever people ask me about this, I've always said, "The fact that Jim's out there doing his thing doesn't stop me or anyone else from doing ours."
However, an episode like this makes me wonder if that's really true."
I'm arguing that if she thinks one little reviewer is standing between her and an interview with anybody in the industry, she's expecting handouts as a journalist. She's being lazy. Get the story regardless of what some acquaintance from her old job is doing. Jim has to buy some of the games he has to review. She'll have to go out of her way to get the interview if she gets blackballed.
And if you don't think her argument is about Redner, PR companies and Jim Sterling:
"Destructoid will probably have an even better time working with the business once PR's less afraid of your power as a rogue variable."
"So let's neither of us be reviewers, and hopefully the result is more fun for you and helps us journalists improve our relationship with the industry."
Sorry, but I'm attacking her on being a bit of a dick and worst of all, unprofessional.
I'll have to disagree that her argument is purely on those grounds.
Bringing in lines about PR companies doesn't clarify that picture. "It's an uneasy dance that often gets difficult when what game journalists want (to be truthful) clashes with what PR wants (to be positive)."
She spends quite a lot of time discussing the effects and the Redner incident to make her point come across.
Jim Redner going on a tangent about an anonymous review he didn't like leads to this line: "what's the responsibility of a reviewer, especially in the Metacritic era where that stupid number means so much?"
The fact that Jim has a persona yet writes a review that can be considered intelligent and informative should negate any argument she has. You misunderstand. This isn't a direct attack on me, I'm attacking her. I'm attacking the fact that nobody should have their work discarded when it is presented in a clear fashion. I go on and on about how I don't like many of Sterling's works in this article, but I am defending his right to present his opinion.
I am hung up on Leigh attacking Jim's reviews instead of attacking his persona, because she isn't saying he shouldn't present himself as mean Jim Sterling. She's saying he shouldn't present himself as a reviewer because he's mean Jim Sterling some times.
Also as an answer to this odd little reduction of my reduction....you know this one: "'Jim hates a game and so my job is harder and so he should quit' is being overly reductive and, yes, lazy."
"So when Jim doesn't like something, PR has got no choice but to take the hit. That's as much of a vicious standoff as anything PR has ever done to the games press.
Not only does that seem a little unfair, but it does affect the rest of us. We may be able to see Jim as a single figure in a broad landscape of writers, but some of our audience doesn't. The industry doesn't." - Leigh Alexander
I believe this long winded article was a response to potentially being black balled by Jim Redner. That the review he was talking about was the die that was being cast and that in turn it would affect journalists and reviewers when he says something negative to somebody that isn't stupid enough to go on twitter with it.
"Whenever people ask me about this, I've always said, "The fact that Jim's out there doing his thing doesn't stop me or anyone else from doing ours."
However, an episode like this makes me wonder if that's really true."
I'm arguing that if she thinks one little reviewer is standing between her and an interview with anybody in the industry, she's expecting handouts as a journalist. She's being lazy. Get the story regardless of what some acquaintance from her old job is doing. Jim has to buy some of the games he has to review. She'll have to go out of her way to get the interview if she gets blackballed.
And if you don't think her argument is about Redner, PR companies and Jim Sterling:
"Destructoid will probably have an even better time working with the business once PR's less afraid of your power as a rogue variable."
"So let's neither of us be reviewers, and hopefully the result is more fun for you and helps us journalists improve our relationship with the industry."
Sorry, but I'm attacking her on being a bit of a dick and worst of all, unprofessional.
It's not Jim's persona that's in question here, it's his professionalism. Satire isn't the issue: It's whether someone who disavows his role as a journalist can be expected to exercise journalistic integrity. You said it yourself, word for word: "@Caiters: That's a solid argument. The fact that Jim Sterling's opinion blurs in to the news perverting it in to something different from the actual story. That is something I could understand and get behind." And a lot of people who read him regularly agree with you. The answer to your hypothetical counter-argument would run along similar lines: Whether Yahtzee's imaginary side project would be aggregated or not would depend on how greatly he could differentiate it from the comedy-centered infotainment he's known for. For most people (yourself apparently included), the line between Jim's comedy and his criticism is pretty damn blurry, and that's the point Alexander is making.
I don't agree with her argument either, Jim has a deserved place in the industry, but disagreeing with her line of reasoning is a far cry from declaring she doesn't have one.
And again, you're confusing the context for the argument. Yes, you've pulled a lot of quotes, but none of this is contradicting what I said. Being "overly reductive" doesn't mean you're making shit up, it means you are omitting and simplifying vast tracts of the argument. It's the difference between characterizing Alexander's opinion as:
"She's saying he shouldn't present himself as a reviewer because he's mean Jim Sterling some times" - manasteel88
and, again:
"The fact that Jim Sterling's opinion blurs in to the news perverting it in to something different from the actual story. That is something I could understand and get behind." -manasteel88
There's a very big difference between someone who is mean sometimes and someone who is professionally malfeasant. Likewise, there's a big difference between someone whining that a reviewer made her job more difficult and someone questioning whether journalistic standards need to be higher in light of a concrete, real-world incident that explicitly demonstrated the industry antagonizing journalists-- literally, making their job harder. If these are details you choose to glaze over, knock yourself out, but doing so doesn't make your arguments hold water.
And are you really going to argue that Alexander wrote this to somehow placate Jim Redner? Seriously, guy? To what end? So he wouldn't deny her all those review copies of games she stated, in big bold letters, she doesn't review? Or because his power and influence have never been greater now that he's been disgraced and fired in a hale of criticism, a week before she wrote the article? If you're going to accuse someone of being a coward and a shill, you should have more than a chip on your shoulder to back it up. At the very least, have an argument that makes a small amount of sense. That, I think, is the quintessential difference between being a professional and "being a bit of a dick."
I think this might be spiraling into one of those aimless internet arguments that have no end or point, and I don't really want to keep trolling your blog (especially after your excellent Cap post yesterday. A much-deserved fap). Bottom line, I think you're way off base in your analysis here, and I'm interested to hear your counter-arguments, but I get the feeling we're not going to see eye to eye on this.
I don't agree with her argument either, Jim has a deserved place in the industry, but disagreeing with her line of reasoning is a far cry from declaring she doesn't have one.
And again, you're confusing the context for the argument. Yes, you've pulled a lot of quotes, but none of this is contradicting what I said. Being "overly reductive" doesn't mean you're making shit up, it means you are omitting and simplifying vast tracts of the argument. It's the difference between characterizing Alexander's opinion as:
"She's saying he shouldn't present himself as a reviewer because he's mean Jim Sterling some times" - manasteel88
and, again:
"The fact that Jim Sterling's opinion blurs in to the news perverting it in to something different from the actual story. That is something I could understand and get behind." -manasteel88
There's a very big difference between someone who is mean sometimes and someone who is professionally malfeasant. Likewise, there's a big difference between someone whining that a reviewer made her job more difficult and someone questioning whether journalistic standards need to be higher in light of a concrete, real-world incident that explicitly demonstrated the industry antagonizing journalists-- literally, making their job harder. If these are details you choose to glaze over, knock yourself out, but doing so doesn't make your arguments hold water.
And are you really going to argue that Alexander wrote this to somehow placate Jim Redner? Seriously, guy? To what end? So he wouldn't deny her all those review copies of games she stated, in big bold letters, she doesn't review? Or because his power and influence have never been greater now that he's been disgraced and fired in a hale of criticism, a week before she wrote the article? If you're going to accuse someone of being a coward and a shill, you should have more than a chip on your shoulder to back it up. At the very least, have an argument that makes a small amount of sense. That, I think, is the quintessential difference between being a professional and "being a bit of a dick."
I think this might be spiraling into one of those aimless internet arguments that have no end or point, and I don't really want to keep trolling your blog (especially after your excellent Cap post yesterday. A much-deserved fap). Bottom line, I think you're way off base in your analysis here, and I'm interested to hear your counter-arguments, but I get the feeling we're not going to see eye to eye on this.
@ Zuqzwang - "I think this might be spiraling into one of those aimless internet arguments that have no end or point"
In the immortal words of Alan Moore, "aren't they all?"
In the immortal words of Alan Moore, "aren't they all?"
@Sir Legendhead
Huh. Well I can't top that. You should be declared winner of the thread, but I think the guy from the adult dating spam still has the edge.
Huh. Well I can't top that. You should be declared winner of the thread, but I think the guy from the adult dating spam still has the edge.
I'll go with Sir Legendhead on this one.
I stand by my argument, but I've reread her post like 7 or 8 times now and I still get the impression that she is using the Redner attack on industry media as a way to explain how a character like Jim Sterling is hurting media to PR relations. I wasn't trying to make it like she was placating Redner. His ability to bring about blackouts and how it effects everybody was more what I was talking about. Less about a single review.
I can understand an argument that people that have persona's that could be considered unprofessional should be looked upon with scrutiny, but I have yet to find any review Jim Sterling has written that could be considered unprofessional. Thus her focus on the argument that Jim's reviews should have no merit is pretty much unsubstantial. She doesn't bring the actual reviews in to the question. She brings his persona.
Each reread of her article is getting me more annoyed so my verbiage is breaking down, mostly because I'm finding the same argument, just apparently not explaining my side in a satisfying way.
Calling Jim Sterling professionally corrupt is pretty hard though.
I stand by my argument, but I've reread her post like 7 or 8 times now and I still get the impression that she is using the Redner attack on industry media as a way to explain how a character like Jim Sterling is hurting media to PR relations. I wasn't trying to make it like she was placating Redner. His ability to bring about blackouts and how it effects everybody was more what I was talking about. Less about a single review.
I can understand an argument that people that have persona's that could be considered unprofessional should be looked upon with scrutiny, but I have yet to find any review Jim Sterling has written that could be considered unprofessional. Thus her focus on the argument that Jim's reviews should have no merit is pretty much unsubstantial. She doesn't bring the actual reviews in to the question. She brings his persona.
Each reread of her article is getting me more annoyed so my verbiage is breaking down, mostly because I'm finding the same argument, just apparently not explaining my side in a satisfying way.
Calling Jim Sterling professionally corrupt is pretty hard though.
