The main problem is that the journalists are happy to be part of the ‘industry’, receiving hardware or access, early or for free in exchange for positive views. For readers: if the journalist has more access than an ordinary person, you can’t trust their review.
Yeah. This is why ethics in game journalism is so heavily fucked.
Game journalism (yes, WAY before “SJW/woke/DEI” crybaby babbling): OMG THIS GAME THAT ISN’T EVEN PLAYABLE YET GETS 10/10 GOTY! RISE OF THE ROBOTS WILL REVOLUTIONIZE 90s GAMING FOREVER!
Tech journalism: WILL THIS STARTUP’S MARKETING PITCH FINALLY CREATE THE ROBOGOD THAT BEGINS THE NERD RAPTURE?
Yeah. This is why I never trust journalists in general period with few exceptions.
Pop science journalism is also frequently sensationalist garbage. In my own field where i am familiar with the subject matter i’d say they have a hit rate of maybe 50% where they actually write something good albeit boring for the average reader, and that’s mostly because the people writing have a real background in science. In other fields where the journalists are essentially amateur enthusiasts the ratio of decent pieces to garbage is even worse.
I am starting to consider whether or not the masses being conditioned to consoom is helping disingenuous “journalism” outlets like IGNorant and Faux News
I found a YouTube link in your post. Here are links to the same video on alternative frontends that protect your privacy:
Was the fact that this is a YouTube video intended irony or accidental irony?
