> > Any regular reader of Gamespot has all the information required
to
> form
> > a useful opinion of whether or not they have biases or
deficiencies.
> > Personal knowledge of the staff is neither useful nor required.
Personal knowledge of people who are indited as a group as "flunkies," is, on the contrary, certainly required. For instance, I would refrain from identifying that group of people who casually diss groups without thought to content as "superficial fools," simply because I know invidiuals such as yourself are definitely not fools, despite making such statements; and I would be required, in good conscience, to reconsider ever making broadly based insults.
> > No one, to my knowledge, is saying that all Gamespot staffers are
> > evil; Gamespot's editorial biases, on the other hand, are readily
> > apparent upon slight acquaintance with the site.
> >
> > Paul E.
Editorial and advertising are in two separate offices, with different management, at different locations. Editorial is told how much space they have to work with on a month to month basis, depending upon ad revenue. Beyond that, content is determined by the editorial management staff, who naturally want to hit all the bigname products, since that's what most people come to their website for. If they have space left over, they hit the rest.
One can object to this policy, but that's the way it works. I've already written my review of KoDP at another webzine that had the space, but currently that site isn't accepting outside reviews, precisely because it hasn't got the advertising revenues to support more than a core staff.
> Thank you, Paul. This was said more eloquently than I could have.
I assume then, Jeff, that you retract the statement that the staff of Gamespot and other netzines is comprised of "flunkies." Apology accepted.
Powered by hypermail