From the Pulpit: Are Embargoes Really Necessary?
Do embargoes protect the press or make for lazy journalism?
9/19/2008 6:41 PM | 9 Comments | Page 2 of 4
John Keefer
Status: Reading da Crispy content and playin' games.
Eventually, I came to my present mindset that exclusive reviews in general are a bad idea. Unfortunately, there is a probability that gold code isn't final code, or that the game the reviewer played is not what will appear in the box for whatever reason. Mistakes
are made, no matter how diligent a site tries to be, and isn't worth risking a review's integrity. In the end, a thorough gameplay review with boxed code, coupled with posting that review as close to the release date as possible, is the way to go. Do we always succeed? No, but at least it allows for one less stone thrown at our profession from the folks looking for honesty in the gaming opinions they read.
The concept of embargoes on previews does have some merit. Some writers are of the opinion that an embargo after an industry event puts everyone (especially smaller sites) on even footing, giving journalists time to digest what they have seen and write a thoughtful piece, rather than throwing a piece together quickly just for the sake of being first. A couple public relations people I chatted with for this story reiterated this concept of "even footing," also pointing out that, with the Internet making information instantly available worldwide, embargoes help coordinate coverage so journalists attending events at different times around the world have a chance to post their reports without being scooped.
To the issue of giving journalists more time to write a quality piece, I have to say that where I come from, working on deadline is what keeps a journalist's adrenaline flowing, not only to make deadline, but also to dig out quality information and find the insight to make the story the best it can be
while making deadline. By taking away this sense of urgency, embargoes on previews can make writers lazy -- which leads me to ask whether being on an "even footing" at the expense of losing a journalistic edge is a good thing. Not for me. Think of any event as breaking news, and let every journalist be on an even footing by sharing the same rush.
As far as keeping the press worldwide coordinated with preview embargoes, the truth of the matter is that embargoes started after many game journalists complained they weren't getting a fair shake if they were anything other than the first stop on a transcontinental public relations tour. The first stop, after all, gets the first story and all the traffic.
But the challenge here again falls on the journalist, to ask probing, provocative questions to get thoughtful responses that force the industry reps to diverge from the planned PR spiel. Treat a preview as an experience that makes for compelling reading and not the regurgitation of a press release. Beat the competition with the quality of the work, and it will negate the ground won by the speed of their fingers. Yes, first on the scene will get the initial hits, but in the end, no matter when info is released, intelligent readers will gravitate to the best-written, the most evocative and the most accurate information available. A readership built on a solid foundation of trust will eventually outweigh one rushing there for the quick hit.
As the videogame industry keeps growing, publishers are vying with each other for that almighty gamer dollar. Game companies seem to be micromanaging more and more information and parceling it out to the news outlets that give them the best placement or conform to the guidelines laid down by some marketing department that, many times, has little handle on what it means to be a journalist, let alone the meaning of the word integrity.
