See here:
http://www.nypost.com/seven/04252008/business/the_worst_of_times_108073.htm
April 25, 2008 --
THE New York Times' news room is bracing for a bloodbath in the next 10 days.

The word from inside is that approximately 50 unionized journalists have accepted the buyout proposal, and only another 20 non-union editorial employees have gotten on board.
That means the ax could fall on as many as 30 editorial people in the company's first-ever mass firing of journalists in its 156-year history.
http://www.nypost.com/seven/04252008/business/the_worst_of_times_108073.htm

Seems that the NYT reputation may not be what it once was. Oh, sure, we can blame it on advertisers, or on the internet competition, but the reality is that it has massive brand recognition and perfect positioning, so why wouldn't an advertiser want to participate? Hmm, here's a thought: maybe the advertisers feel that the NYT has in fact abused it's “good reputation”. Maybe they also feel that the NYT has alienated certain demographic groups that the advertisers desperately want... so they've eliminated any need for those particular advertising campaigns to colaborate with the paper.

Here's a hint to NYT CEO: we don't all lean Left. And if you bash our views enough, as you have, then we aren't gonna pay you for it. That's not censorship, that's marketing...something the NYT seems to have forgotten about, even if it's part of their core business. PS: CBS, this also applies to you.

It's not about whether or not a person is biased - every human being on this planet (and the view orbiting it right now) is biased to a certain extent - but about to make publicly clear where your affiliation lies.

Wesley Clark left no doubt about his political affiliation - heck, he wanted to run for president on a democratic ticket. So when he was giving his opinion, everyone knew where his bias was.

On the other hand, these individuals in questions have (alegedly) been hired by the administration to present the governments position on the Iraq war - but not openly, rather in the disguise of "independent analysts" (the sneaky, weasle-type way). Had they been up front and told everybody "listen, Rummy personally asked me to come here and set you folks straight" the audience would have been able to discern where they were coming from (literally).

It would be like some would write an "official" review about a game on a popular gaming site, but secretly were hired by, say Ubisoft, to give it a positive spin.

Alright, hold it right there. I know you didn't mean it literally, but I don't appreciate the insinuation that one of our Staff would be swayed by the push or pull of a developer or publisher. I know you're building an analogy, but it is not a good one, certainly not in the context of all the hard work we put in here. Analogies or jokes or whatever, if they're good, need to have a little bit of truth in them. This does not.

Haven't there been stories about just that type of pay-to-play in regards to reviewing in the game world? Pretty relevant analogy to me he could have said:

It would be like you as "someone" would write an "official" review about a game here at gamespot, but secretly were hired by, say Ubisoft, to give it a positive spin.

And yet you admit yourself that you read it every day. Despite your post being incredibly off topic, it's also incredibly hypocritical.

Tom, relax, you know I don't believe that there is any truth in that, regarding SimHQ (if I'd believe that I wouldn't hang around here)!! I wasn't insinuating anything, I was merely giving an analogy. Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.

And please don't go looking for things that are not there. Sheesh, why is everyone so twitchy lately?

No I don't... where did you make that incorrect assumption?

I told you that I read "the newspaper" every day... YOU ASSUMED INCORRECTLY IT WAS THE NYT.

Funny that you are now taking quotes from a different forum and injecting them into this thread!
See here: http://www.websonix.ca/~wce/viewtopic.php?t=6774&highlight=
Of course it's your right to do so, freedom of speech, but doing so can confuse the other readers who might just wonder where the quote came from if not in this thread.

Where the hell did I inject quotes from a different forum in this thread, Rick? Oh, that's right, I didn't.

Since we were talking about the NYT and since I asked how often folks read it, you replied every day.

I guess you were just trying to mislead the readers, like you're doing here as well. Since you linked to it, I'm sure they'll all see what we're talking about. Thanks for clarifying. They will now see that it's clear that since you replied to me and we're talking about the NYT, when you reply to me, and quote me, you're responding to my question about the NYT.

Sorry for assuming you were responding honestly to my question about the NYT. I'll consider that in the future.



Jayhawk, you ask a really good question!

Then prove me wrong: show me which post, IN THIS THREAD, that I said “I read it every day”.

Once you see my post, in this thread, you can copy/paste in the post ID number... which on your post just above this one says, for instance:

#2502119 - Today at 03:55 PM






Speaking of that... I think you are even more confused, since you don't even ask that question in this thread either! But by all means, if you can show evidence and provide the post # and time...





I'll just let that statement stand on it's own, pending proof.

It actually strikes to the heart of the matter.

Let's say that I am a UBISoft fan; I worked for UBI for years, retired from UBI, and really liked my time there. Let's say I also have a lot of connections within UBI and do some contract work for UBISoft; I also review software independantly - but my primary credibility as a software reviewer is in my past affiliation with UBISoft.

Now, then, let's say a game with "Controversial" content such as GTA IV is about to be released, and UBISoft knows there's gonna be flak about the game. As a software reviewer, UBISoft calls me up and has a chat with me, where they:

A) Welcome me as a friend and "brother."
B) Give their side of the issue.
C) Ask that "in the name of fairness" I keep in mind their perspective and voice it.
D) Hint that I need to do some active stuff "for the team" to help out.

Is that sneaky? Underhanded?

Now let's just say that the executives at UBISoft aren't just calling me up, but every software reviewer they have a relationship with in a systematic way with the intent of getting their main defense talking points for GTA IV out there.

Is it a conspiracy?

You'll notice that in my very hypothetical scenario no money changed hands and no coercion is involved - the software reviewer is already one foot on the company's side, so it's not needed.

Similarly, if a software reviewer had the UBI experience of our protaganist but was routinely critical or had acted as an agent for UBI's competition since leaving - and was likely to oppose the software if approached, UBI wouldn't call them up.

The question is:

1) Should the reviewer that is favorable to UBI have to reveal he had talked to UBI and was basically "doing their bidding" even if he agreed with them without the meeting?

2) Should a reviewer that has an interest in UBI not doing well (he has stock in a competing company or another reason to oppose them) have to provide the same information as a condition of his word?

The funny thing about payola in the review world is that companies can pick and choose who to send stuff to based on past reviews. If it's complete "fanboy" they might not send anything at all other than an email saying the next version of something is going to come out and offer an "early opportunity" to buy it (or beta test). Middle of the road would probably get the gear on loan. Some products and gear would be given, as it's pointless to loan most hardware.

Personally, I love NaturalPoint products. The odds that NaturalPoint would send me a TIR 5 to review are astronomical simply because they know I will buy it and give it a positive review unless they really screwed it up. The downsides of TrackIR are so small as to be nitpicks, IMHO.

I doubt Saitek would ever send me anything. As much as I like my Saitek HOTAS (HOTASes? HOTASi?) and pedals, they are not without faults that I merrily pointed out. Or maybe they would, as I take a pretty "balanced" approach towards their products.

In my reviews, I put my biases towards products up front, though, and stipulate that the views are my own and not Universal Truth.