Fostering Fanboyism
The views expressed below are not necessarily the views of N-Sider Media Inc. They represent the views of the original writer only.
The term fanboy has become famous (or infamous) amongst the gaming community. It is used frequently on message boards all over the Internet. And even here at N-Sider, weve had several editorials discussing the subject. In these editorials, various staff have analysed the symptoms of fanboyism (particularly the extremely biased, fact-distorting arguments used by those afflicted with the aforementioned problem) and some staff have also talked about the possible causes and reasons for the behavior.
Recent news reports, editorials and features on a large number of gaming (and non-gaming) sites have convinced me that one of the possible causes for fanboyism is in fact the gaming media. Though recent articles have pushed me to the point where I feel it necessary to write this editorial, I have actually felt this way for quite a long time. Over the last few years, I have noticed several extreme cases of outright fraud, distortions and misrepresentations. But I find that much more subtle forms of fanboy-tainted work often punctuate the content published between each major extreme case.
In many cases, these distortions (of news presentation in particular) are discussed and criticized by gamers themselves. The infamous Forbes article (Nintendos Game May Be Over, by Betsy Schiffman) on Nintendos role in the console war was perhaps one of the more memorable cases of significant factual misrepresentation. It was an article that had gamers talking the world over. And it even compelled me to email the articles author (as I suspected, I never received a reply). At the time, most gamers seemed to say that this was another example of the non-gaming medias complete lack of understanding when it comes to the game industry. And I think its fair to say that many of us simply shrugged it off as mainstream media ignorance. However, the article itself was never removed from Forbes.com. And Forbes made no statements regarding the blatant inaccuracies of the articles content. In Forbes eyes, there was nothing wrong.
Though it may give us some comfort to think that as gamers, we know better, it has become increasingly obvious in recent times that gaming media itself is also guilty of questionable journalism. However, I feel that there is a significant difference between the kind of content Forbes published, compared with the content that is published by gaming web sites and magazines.
Forbes article was laced with factual inaccuracies, which were compounded by a frequent misinterpretation of market data and other freely available information. In essence, I do not believe that the author wished to deliberately push forward any particular agenda they simply performed poor research and failed to correctly interpret information. However, within the gaming media, I tend to find that the factual inaccuracies and distortions are tied to the desire to push a particular idea or bias.
In the case of Forbes, the errors made were simply unforgivable. Forbes is a well-respected publication and there is no excuse for the questionable nature of the game-related articles written by Betsy Schiffman.
In terms of Internet publications, we are talking about a much more complex area. By the very nature of the Internet, anyone can publish anything they like. And therein lies the problem.
There are many different gaming web sites out there, some more credible than others. But in general terms, gaming web sites are not bound by journalistic ethics or responsibility to readers. And given that very few are able to make money in the current environment, gaming web sites tend to be more a labor of love than anything else. The problem arises when web sites with a significant audience begin to either publish false/misleading news information or publish articles that are punctuated by everything from minor misrepresentations to all-out lies.
And of course, if you publish this kind of content on any kind of consistent basis, your readers are going to walk away with the wrong information. And in some cases, that wrong information (or biased article) will help to fuel the flames of fanboysim. Gamers read these articles and then proceed to duke it out on message boards of all kinds, often armed with either false information or facts full of emotional spin. Of course, gamers dont necessarily need to read gaming web sites to fall into this category. But sites that refuse to adhere to basic principles of ethics and fairness can only further increase the one-sided rhetoric that we so commonly see on the Internet.
One of the common mistakes made within the gaming media is the fusion of news and opinion. By definition, news should be reported objectively and without emotion, whilst editorials and such are based on opinion and speculation. I have seen numerous examples of news pieces that have been written in a very specific way, in order to confuse or mislead the reader. This is wrong. And no site that claims credibility can engage in this practice. However, this is perhaps the most frequent form of questionable publishing that I see on the Internet.
Editorials/opinion pieces are a more difficult subject matter. It is the nature of an editorial to be at least somewhat biased. And of course, editorials are based on the opinion of the author and they dont necessarily represent the view of the site on which they are published. However, in terms of the idea that what gamers read in gaming publications can foster fanboyism, editorials and feature stories have a role to play. In these cases, its not so much a matter of questioning the site that publishes the editorials, but rather, it is a case of taking the author of the editorial to task.
N-Sider has hosted editorials in the past from various authors who have attempted to quell the flames, so to speak. The most recent example is a controversial counter-editorial by Josh Righter (Miyamoto Leaving? Think Again...), one of our permanent staff. Whilst this article approached the situation in a way that I personally may not have chosen, I do believe that such editorials are necessary. Just as writers such as Eric Mattei have the freedom to write whatever they desire, other writers also have the freedom to counter Matteis comments with their own rebuttal. It is these counter-editorials that present an opposing view within the framework of a published article (as opposed to a thread in a message board, which may receive less coverage/attention). And it is these counter editorials that give gamers the ability to read both sides and make their own determination.
However, there are many articles that do not receive the same kind of scrutiny. Many of these articles are laced with extremely biased content. Of course, if you write for a Nintendo site, I imagine that some level of bias is to be expected. The same goes for someone who writes for a PlayStation 2 or Xbox site. However, in my opinion, a truly good editorial is one that uses facts to prove a particular point or exemplify the contention of the author. Yet in many cases, authors who write for large sites either misrepresent information in order to further a contrasting point of view (a view that contradicts the evidence/information), or they simply rant and make brief, inaccurate reference to vague pieces of information.
Whilst I believe that Mr. Matteis editorials tend to adhere to the latter, he is certainly not the only guilty party. There are many authors who use similar practices when publishing content, in an effort to give legitimacy to what might otherwise be nothing more than a venomous emotional rant.
Of course, if you make it clear to your readers that you are merely ranting, perhaps any violation of basic responsibility is void. But so many authors take their rant and dress it up with selective representation of data, seemingly random/unrelated statistics or any number of other strategies. As mentioned above, it often seems that writers are trying to give some credence or legitimacy to what they are saying. But in other cases, it seems that writers lace their illogical rants with false/empty praise, in an apparent effort to distill the truly harsh nature of the article. How many times have you seen articles that continually bash the new Zelda, whilst also adding although Im sure the game play will be good? While its quite possible that much of this praise is genuine, I often find it strange that an entire article can be filled with almost nothing but nasty comments and end with some sort of half-hearted praise at the end. Its as if the intent is to soften the blow, once the primary submission has been made.
Having had no formal training in the field of journalism myself, perhaps I am not the most qualified when it comes to commenting on this area. But through my experience as a gamer, a visitor to online publications/message boards and a writer for N-Sider.com, I have become concerned at what seems to be a growing trend. The question of whether or not online gaming publications have experienced a general deterioration in quality and/or ethics in recent times is arguable. Perhaps the problem has always been there and I have simply not noticed it until only a few months ago.
And yet, despite all the discussion regarding fanboyism amongst gamers, I find it odd that the spotlight has not been aimed clearly at the gaming media itself. Publications such as Forbes are almost expected to get it wrong on a consistent basis, even though that doesnt make their questionable reporting on the industry any less problematic. But you would think that the gaming media as a whole would be far more in tune with the happenings in the industry and would seek to counter the often poor mainstream coverage. Unfortunately, that simply isnt the case. And even though smaller fan sites tend to be the biggest culprits when it comes to inaccurate or questionable publishing, it seems that even the bigger commercial gaming web sites are occasionally slipping into this category.
So, given all of the above, what advice can I provide? Simply put, the best way to assure that you are getting an accurate picture of the industry is to view as many web sites as you are able to. The more sources you view, the better. And if you see an editorial or news item that demonstrates the characteristics I have provided above, I strongly urge you to email the author of the piece. Reader response is an incredibly powerful tool. If any kind of online publication finds enough complaints about its reporting/representation of information in its inbox, you can be sure that the site will change. At the very least, youre letting online publishers know that you disapprove of such content.
I must also say that I am not the only member of the gaming media who has spoken out about problematic reporting. Justin Searls of Nintendojo published an eloquently written editorial (Streamlining the Mainstream: Forbes), which deconstructed Betsy Schiffmans piece on Forbes.com. Though Searls article attacked a mainstream media source, rather than a gaming-specific source, I believe that such articles are incredibly important.
Ultimately, the buck most definitely stops with the reader. But even so, authors and online publishers should take note and be cautious about what they publish. Even though the rhetoric spouted by some authors is specifically their own viewpoint, poorly-researched and otherwise problematic content presented on a consistent basis is sure to impact on the credibility of the publisher itself. At the end of the day, it is hypocritical at best (and utterly fraudulent at worst) for some game journalists to complain about fanatical gamers; especially when they themselves are often responsible for fostering fanboyism.