• 4Dec 07

  That is NOT what Jeff Stood For.

  I would like to humbly submit my opinion on Gerstmanngate, that most of us are looking at this the wrong way.

  When I first got word of the recent catastrophic events that have swept up the Gamespot community into a frenzied mob, I had the same exact reaction as everyone else did; I was pissed. I wanted to know why Jeff was fired, whether or not Eidos had a hand in it, and how many times reviews have been tainted by these sorts of corporate dealings. To think that all the times that I've trusted these guys to direct my hard earned green to one game or another... and now I find out that big money grubbing corporations had their hands in the final review scores of games? OUTRAGE!!!

  After a day to collect my thoughts on the situation, the obvious conundrum hit me: Do I continue to visit and support the site for the remaining editors, blindly accepting anything that gets posted as being unswayed by corporate dollars? Do I avoid it entirely in an attempt to make a statement that I wont stand for this sort of tampering with the integrity of Gamespot's reviews? It now occurs to me that, while both extremes are attempting to help out a terrible situation, they are still just that. Extremes.

  Why shouldn't I still trust the guys and their reviews? Even if the rumors are true, and we lost Jeff because of the K&L review, that STILL means Jeff got fired for being frank with us and giving us his honest impressions of the game. So why, then, should I be led to believe that reviews he's given me in the past are somehow corrupted? He OBVIOUSLY refused to let his opinion be swayed by the money grubbers in suits who own the rights to the website, to the point that he was willing to lose his job over it. So how does that make his past reviews "corrupt"?

  I also see no reason to believe that, because one man got fired due to his honesty, that the rest of the Gamespot crew has been involved in illicit dealings over their review scores. This was allegedly a situation in which Eidos got pissed about something, and some higher ups at CNet took the easy way out. Period. That does not mean that it happens often, or that corporate pressure sways everything that goes on at Gamespot. In fact, to even insinuate that that goes on is to undermine everything that a bunch of hard working, game loving guys have put together for us.

  The fact here is that the editors at Gamespot are not the corporate heads that collect the advertising dollars. The editors at Gamespot are everyday guys who work tirelessly to try and make this website the best possible entity it can be for all of us. While I'm not in on the payroll, I can't imagine that any of them are getting rich off of their efforts here, and yet they continue to spend countless hours playing crappy games so that we don't have to. I have to believe that Gamespot is a labor of love to these guys in the same way it is for Jeff, and I simply can't believe that they would sacrifice the journalistic integrity that they've spent YEARS building for the sake of a few advertising dollars.

  Does that mean that the CNet overlords wouldn't? Of course not. All signs right now point to the fact that they already have. HOWEVER: Those corporation's advertising dollars wont do ANYTHING to sway the editor's review scores unless the editors themselves succumb to such pressure.

  Did you read that properly? That was the important point I'm driving at. I'll say it again.

  THE EDITORS STILL HAVE CONTROL OVER WHAT THEY WRITE.

  While axing Jeff is a dastardly move by the higher ups and a tragedy to all of us fans of the site, it was a win for the INTEGRITY of the site. It says to me that Jeff was willing to sacrifice his job in order to keep the truth flowing out to all of us. To make it seem like his sacrifice is somehow proving that Gamespot has been corrupted by the corporate morons is to miss the point entirely.

  Whether you agreed with his reviews or not, this proves that Jeff was all about standing up for his own opinion on games. Should we keep an eye out for the potential of editors being afraid to post their true impressions from here on out? Of course. Jeff being fired feels almost like a direct threat to the rest of the guys. But until we start to see signs that the rest of the editors, the ones we've all come to think of as friends despite never meeting them in person, are any less dedicated than Jeff to the honesty in and integrity of what they post on this site, I see no reason to believe that they would lead us astray.

  Jeff, we're all behind ya on this one. Thanks for sticking to what you believe is right.

  • Posted Dec 4, 2007 11:14 am PT
  • Category: Editorial
  • 2 Comments
  • Tag
  • Print
  • Email
  • Facebook
  • Digg
  • Tweet

See Previous Blog Posts »